Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? September 2015

Copy-editing: The Clyvedon Press Ltd. Design: Javiera G. Gotelli

Photo credits: Cover: iStock 000063424927 Page 13: iStockPhoto; Page 21: iStock Photo; Page 47: IWA/Katharine Cross; Page 52: iStockPhoto; Page 56: IWA/Katharine Cross; Page 60: IWA/Paul Bell.

© UN-Water, 2015 This document is published by UN-Water Suggested citation UN-Water 2015. Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Copies available from Web: www.iwa-network.org/which-water-for-which-use 3 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Table of Contents

Preface ...... 7 Contributors ...... 8 Acronyms and Units of Measurement ...... 11 Introduction ...... 13 Background and Rationale ...... 14 Scope and Objectives ...... 15 What is the Compendium? ...... 15 Who will use the Compendium? ...... 16 Overview of Methodology ...... 16 Selection of instruments ...... 16 Users’ Guide ...... 17 What can be found in this document? ...... 17 How to use this document? ...... 18 Summary of Key Findings ...... 19 Part I: Water Quality Regulatory Instruments ...... 21 Terminology ...... 21 Overview of water quality regulatory instruments ...... 22 Overview of Compendium Chapters ...... 24 Chapter 1: Scope of the Law and Policy Instruments ...... 25 Chapter 2: Management Frameworks ...... 29 Chapter 3: Parameters, Indicators and Thresholds adopted for Different Uses ...... 35 Chapter 4: Implementation of Water Quality Guidelines ...... 39 Criteria for Assessment ...... 45 Bibliography ...... 47 Part II: Case studies ...... 52 Structure and content ...... 52 Case Study Summaries ...... 53 Canada’s Water Quality Guidelines ...... 53 China Reclaimed Water Reuse Regulations ...... 53 Portugal’s Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Model ...... 53 South African Green Drop Certification for Excellence in Wastewater Treatment Plant Operation ...... 53 The eMalahleni Water Reclamation Plant in South Africa ...... 54 The Flemish Decree on Integrated Water Policy ...... 54 The European Water Framework Directive in the Netherlands ...... 54 Three examples of law and policy instruments addressing water quality issues caused by climate change ...... 54 United States water quality criteria for nitrogen ...... 54 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 4

Table of Contents

Glossary of Terms ...... 56 Annexes ...... 60 Annex I: Methodology ...... 60 Inception Phase ...... 60 Selection of instruments ...... 61 Drafting and Review ...... 61 Overview of Working Groups ...... 62 Annex II: Input forms ...... 64 Annex III: List of selected regulatory instruments ...... 66 Annex IV: Complementary sources ...... 68 The International Water Quality Guidelines for Ecosystems (IWQGES) ...... 68 The World Water Quality Assessment (WWQA) ...... 69 Wastewater Monitoring and Assessment ...... 69 5 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

List of Boxes, Figures and Tables

BOX 1 the Sawq Guidelines of 1996 ...... 25 BOX 2 WHO/UNEP Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Grey Water in Agriculture and Aquaculture 2006 ...... 27 BOX 3 Canada’s Water Quality Guidelines ...... 29 BOX 4 The EU Framework for Water Quality ...... 30 BOX 5 Groundwater Governance: A Global Framework for Action ...... 33 BOX 6 The German Drinking Water Ordinance (2001) ...... 36 BOX 7 Brazil Conama Water Quality Resolutions ...... 40 BOX 8 The Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling 2006 ...... 42

FIGURE 1 Freshwater Abstraction by Major Use ...... 14 FIGURE 2 Regulatory Instruments And Case Studies Included In The Compendium According To Geographical Scale ...... 23 FIGURE 3 Determination of Health-Related Indicator Value (Hriv) ...... 37 FIGURE 4 Classes of Surface Freshwater Bodies According to Their Uses ...... 41

TABLE 1 Criteria for Analysis rr Guiding Questions ...... 24 TABLE 2 Subrgroups ...... 63 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 6

Michel Jarraud Chair of UN-Water and Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

Achim Steiner UNEP Executive Director and Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations

Ger Bergkamp Executive Director of The International Water Association 7 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Preface

Water quality issues are complex and dynamic can be reused in agriculture. Whilst existing li- in nature, presenting challenges to water secu- terature and regulatory frameworks have long rity that demand urgent solutions from the local addressed the importance of water quality, regu- to the global level. As human populations grow, latory instruments that consider the interactions industrial and agricultural activities expand, and and interdependencies between water uses and climate change threatens to cause major altera- ecosystems are still insufficient. tions in the hydrological cycle. Declining water By providing an overview of selected laws and quality is a growing concern, one that will im- policies and supporting case studies, this Com- pact human well-being, environmental sustaina- pendium aims to improve the guidelines for ma- bility and economic performance. naging water quality globally. It provides a plat- In 2050, overall water demand is expected to form to engage and inform policy and decision have increased by 55 per cent. A balanced mix makers on these critical issues, as well as guidan- of water supply and water demand manage- ce on how regulatory frameworks can promote ment strategies is required to ensure water secu- wise use, innovation and efficiency in water ma- rity. Making water management more efficient nagement. through innovative and wise policies and regula- The Compendium presents an opportunity for tions is one way to achieve this goal. countries to make their water quality regulatory Improving efficiency of water use requires regu- frameworks and management instruments “fit latory frameworks that better reflect how diffe- for purpose”, improving water security and de- rent water uses require different water qualities. livering better services for all. Water from industrial processes, for example, Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 8

Contributors

Compendium Project Team Dr Maria Ines Zanoli Sato, Environmental Company of Sao Paulo State (CETESB), Brazil International Water Association (IWA) Ms Katharine Cross, Thailand Dr Jeffrey Alan Thornton, International Environmental Management Services Limited, Ms Carolina Latorre Aravena, The Netherlands United States of America United Nations Environment Dr Mihaela Vasilescu, Romanian Water Programme (UNEP) Association (ARA), Romania Dr Thomas Chiramba, Kenya Working Group 2 (Review) Mr Emmanuel Ngore, Kenya Mr Baton Begolli, Office of Prime Minister, Ms Aruwa Bendsen, Kenya Kosovo Mr Keith Alverson, Kenya Dr Jo E. Burgess, Water Research Commission, South Africa Consulted Experts and Reviewers Dr Deborah V. Chapman, University College IWA Task Force on Water Quality Cork, Ireland Dr Chrysoula Papacharalampou, University of Dr Sarah Hendry, University of Dundee, United Bath, United Kingdom Kingdom Mr Carlos Campos, CEFAS, United Kingdom Dr Eng Florin Gheorghe Iliescu, Romanian Water Association (ARA), Romania Prof Zaki Zainudin, International Islamic University of Malaysia (IIUM), Malaysia Dr Xujun Liu, Yunnan Water Industry Investment and Development, China Working Group 1 (Development) Dr Marcelo Pires da Costa, Agencia Nacional de Prof Zinet Selmin Burak, Istanbul University, Aguas (ANA), Brazil Turkey Dr Bala Vigneswaran, Sydney Catchment Mr Boris David, Veolia, France Authority, Australia Dr Chris Dickens, Institute of Natural Resources Mr John Whitler, Water Research Foundation, NPC, South Africa United States of America Dr Alexander Eckhardt, Federal Environment Mr Luis Simas, ERSAR, Portugal Agency (UBA), Germany Mr Peter van Puijenbroek, PBL Environmental Prof Peter Goethals, Ghent University, Belgium Assessment Agency, The Netherlands Dr Xie Hua, International Food Policy Research Institute, United States of America Dr Nilce Ortiz, Institute for Nuclear and Energy Research (IPEN), Brazil Prof Monica Pereira Do Amaral Porto, University of São Paulo, Brazil 9 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Countries and International Kosovo Organisations1 Mr Baton Begolli, Water Policy Advisor, Office of Prime Minister - Water Task Force Countries Moldova Australia Mrs. Serafima Tronza, Water Management Dr David Cunliffe, Department of Health Department, Ministry of Environment Barbados Portugal Ms Ingrid Lavine, Environmental Protection Mr Luís Simas, Water Quality Department, The Department Water and Waste Services Regulation Authority Belarus South Africa Mr Vladimir Korneev, Water Monitoring Ms Eiman Karar, Water Research Commission Department, Central Research Institute for Complex Use of Water Resource Dr Jo E. Burgess, Water Research Commission Ms. Alena Drazdova, Laboratory of Potable Spain Water Supply and Sanitary Protection of Water Mr Carlos M. Escartín Hernández, Dirección Bodies, Republican Scientific-Practical Centre of General del Agua, Ministerio de Agricultura, Hygiene, Ministry of Health Alimentación y Medio Ambiente Brazil The Netherlands Dr Marcelo Pires da Costa, Agencia Nacional de Dhr. dr. ir. D.T. van der Molen, Directorate- Aguas (ANA) General Environment & Water, Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment Canada Dr Donald Reid, Operations Division, Turkey Environment and Sustainable Resource Mr Huseyin Akbas, Orman ve Su Isleri Bakanlı, Development, Government of Alberta Su Yonetimi Genel Mudurlgu, Genel Mudur Yardımcısı (Water Management Directorate, Mr Thorsten Hebben, Policy Division, OrmanSU) Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Government of Alberta United States of America Mr Wendell Koning, Regional Operations, South Dr Sasha Koo-Oshima, International Water Saskatchewan Region, Alberta Environment and Program, Office of Assistant Administrator for Parks Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ms Véronique Morisset, Water Quality Program Regional regulatory bodies Division, Water and Air Quality Bureau, Safe Environments Directorate, Health Canada Europe Ms Marta Moren Abat, International, Regional France and Bilateral Relations Unit, E1 DG Environment, Mr Yannick Pavageau, Water Quality Office, European Commission Ministry of Social Affairs and Health

1 That provided comments during verification process Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 10

Special Thanks

Dr Doerte Ziegler, GIZ, Germany Dr Ingrid Chorus, Federal Environment Agency (UBA), Germany Dr Sasha Koo-Oshima, Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), United States of America Mr Dennys Canales, Pollutants Control and Research Center (CESCCO), Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Honduras Mr Guillaume Le Gall, Naldeo, France Mr Javier Mateo-Sagasta, IWMI, Sri Lanka Ms Kate Medlicott, World Health Organization, Switzerland Mr Daniel Fernández Martín, Consultant, Spain Ms Natalia Sergienko, former IWA staff, Russia Ms Sasha Rodrigues, former IWA staff, Canada

11 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Acronyms and Units of Measurement

ADI Acceptable Daily Intake CONAMA Brazilian National Environmental Council EQS Environmental quality standards EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GEF Global Environment Facility GPA Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land -based Activities HRIV Health-Related Indicator Value IAH International Association of Hydrogeologists IDC Indicative Dose Criteria IWA International Water Association IWQGES The International Water Quality Guidelines for Ecosystems NHRMC National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia PoM Programme of Measures PMU Project Management Unit RBD River Basin Districts RBMP River Basin Management Plans RIVM National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Netherlands) RfD Reference Dose RQO Resource Quality Objectives SAWQG South African Water Quality Guidelines TDI Tolerable Daily Intake TPA Thematic Priority Area UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNESCO-IHP UNESCO International Hydrological Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization US EPA US Environmental Protection Agency WFD Water Framework Directive WHO World Health Organisation WSP Water Safety Plans WWQA World Water Quality Assessment Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 12 CustomCustom title title Goes Goes here here 9

Introduction

This document consists of several components: the Introduction (this section), which out- lines the rationale of developing the Compendium; an overview of the methodology; how instruments were selected; and a user guide for the overall Compendium.

Part I of the Compendium provides an over- re there is contradictory information or different view of selected laws and policies regulating approaches. water quality for different uses in geographical Annex I provides an in-depth description of the scales. The information about each instrument methodology used to develop the Compendium has been consolidated into a database organi- and analyse the law and policy instruments. This sed into chapters: (1) Scope of law and policy annex includes details on the working groups, instruments; (2) Management frameworks; (3) which consisted of water quality experts from Parameters, indicators and thresholds adopted developing and developed countries, as well as for different uses; (4) Implementation of water policy makers and practitioners. Annex II con- quality guidelines. A narrative in this document tains the templates used to collect and analyse accompanies each chapter in the database and information from the experts. Annex III has a list facilitates its navigation. Part I also contains Cri- of the regulatory instruments that have been teria for Assessment, which is a checklist of what analysed in depth as part of the Compendium. makes a particular law or policy a good instru- The details of these instruments are in the da- ment to regulate water quality. tabase and references are made throughout the Part II of the Compendium contains case studies, Compendium narrative. Annex IV has a list of which showcase best practices and different me- complementary reports and projects, some of thodological approaches to regulate water qua- which are under the umbrella of the UN-Water lity requirements for different uses. A Glossary Thematic Priority Area on Water Quality (as is the of Terms is provided to clarify the meaning of Compendium). a certain approach or analysis, especially whe- Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 14

Background and Rationale

Declining water quality is a global issue of con- ter demand is expected to increase by an overall cern as human populations grow, industrial and 55% by 2050, including a 400% increase in wa- agricultural activities expand, and climate chan- ter demand for manufacturing, 140% for electri- ge threatens to cause major alterations to the city and 130% for domestic use (OECD, 2012); hydrological cycle (UN Water, 2014). ‘Over the yet, agriculture will remain as the largest user of last hundred years, global population has qua- water. Figure 1 (see below) shows the total per- drupled, while water use grew by a factor of se- centage of freshwater abstraction by major use ven’, thus challenging current and future water (OECD, 2014a). security (UNDP, 2006). Furthermore, global wa-

Figure 1 Freshwater abstraction by major use and graph showing total abstraction, abstraction per capita and amount of GDP relative to total abstraction (OECD, 2014b) NOTE: According to the OECD (2014b) trends in water abstractions since the 1990s have been generally stable. In some countries this is due to increased use of alternative water sources, including water reuse and desalination. Also, trends since 2000 indicate a relative decoupling between water use and GDP growth in many OECD countries.

Ensuring water security will require a balanced gues on water security. mix of water supply and water demand mana- More efficient management requires regulations gement strategies. Without more efficient, in- and policies that better reflect the water cycle. novative and wiser policies and regulations, it is Assessment of available water resources entai- expected that the relative importance of water ls improved understanding of return flows and uses will shift by 2050, increasing competition downstream water quality that is fit for purpose, irrigation and other uses (OECD, 2012). while taking into account the requirements for Water quality issues are complex and dynamic in ecosystem services. nature and require urgent attention and action. There is extensive literature on water quality Addressing these issues requires exhaustive, up- with regard to issues such as water scarcity and to-date information on the quantity and quality the amount of water required for ecosystems of water resources and their current regulatory ‘compounded by the impact of climate change frameworks to inform the global and local dialo- on available resources’ (WWAP, 2012). While 15 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

existing literature and regulatory frameworks policy, while considering complementary instru- have long addressed sectoral water quality re- ments, management approaches and lessons quirements, instruments that consider the inte- learned on implementation. ractions and interdependencies between water The development of this Compendium responds uses and ecosystems are still insufficient. to the following objectives: Understanding that different water uses requi- • To facilitate access to information on sta- re different qualities provides an opportunity to te-of-the-art water quality requirements for increase efficiency. Drafting of regulatory fra- different uses and multiple geographical sca- meworks to better manage water qualities that les, with input from relevant practitioners; are ‘fit for purpose’ can, therefore, benefit from the wide range of standards and guidelines cu- • To contribute towards improving access to rrently available. information on water quality requirements for different uses, with the purpose of pro- The Compendium is a UN-Water initiative de- moting efficient water use and ultimately, re- veloped in collaboration with the International ducing water use conflicts; Water Association (IWA) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It aims to fulfil • To identify the elements and different regu- the objectives of UN-Water’s Thematic Priority latory approaches for efficient water quality Area on Water Quality, by supporting govern- management; ments and other stakeholders to address wa- • To raise awareness among governments and ter quality challenges that contributes to water stakeholders to incorporate water quality di- quality targets defined through successive World mensions into water resource planning and Water Forums and several key objectives in the management; Rio+20 Communiqué. The compendium will pro- vide relevant information for the preparation of • To enable an informed science and policy a framework that guides the use of water quality dialogue on water security among stakehol- that is fit for purpose. ders, considering the use of different water qualities to address increasing challenges caused by water quality deterioration; Scope and Objectives • To be a source of information for the deve- The Compendium is an overview and analysis lopment of the international water quality of a variety of selected water quality guidelines, guidelines for ecosystems. standards and regulatory frameworks for diffe- rent uses and geographical regions. Its aim is to What is the provide an overview of instruments and policies regulating water quality to enable the prepara- Compendium? tion of frameworks for water qualities that are The output is a reference tool of laws and policies ‘fit for purpose’. regulating water quality for different uses at a To achieve such an aim, the development of this variety of geographical scales. The Compendium Compendium undertakes the first steps to iden- is a living document that will be continuously tify laws and policies regulating water quality, updated as information about instruments and case studies and examples at multiple geogra- their implementation is added by users. phical scales and from multi-disciplinary pers- This initial report provides the basis to assess pectives on all major water uses (e.g. agriculture, policy and regulatory instruments, identifying ecosystems, energy, domestic and industry). the main characteristics of efficient instruments, The Compendium also provides an integrated also facilitating the continuing development of and descriptive analysis of each selected law and the Compendium tool. Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 16

from different sectors and from developed and Who will use the developing countries. Compendium? Working Group 1 (Development) provided The immediate target group of the Compendium technical input into the Compendium, including are public officials and regulators: decision advice on the final criteria to gather and analyse makers at large. The development process of the standards and guidelines; suggestions for the Compendium has also established a network selection of innovative guidelines and standards of water quality experts and practitioners to be included in the Compendium; as well promoting the wise use of water of different as guidance to the content of the necessary qualities for different purposes. reports and assessments to be included in the The Compendium can also be used by a wider Compendium. audience of water quality experts, practitioners, academia and the general public, with the Working Group 2 (Review) reviewed the purpose of promoting efficient water use and, documents produced in collaboration with ultimately, reducing water use conflicts. Working Group 1 and provided technical input and feedback on the application of the Compendium at national and regional levels, Overview of so that relevant officials have improved access to information on water quality requirements Methodology for different water uses, which will promote A detailed description of the methodology used efficient water use. to develop the Compendium is available in Annex I. The collection and analysis of laws and Annex II provides further details of the input policies regulating water quality was undertaken forms to collect information from the task force with water quality experts from developing and working groups. and developed countries, policy makers and The laws and policies in this document are practitioners. This was followed by a verification duly referenced and online sources – such as process with country and regulatory bodies’ institutional websites – are included whenever representatives to ensure accuracy in primary possible. Secondary sources and opinion analysis sources and the relevance of the criteria for are also referenced to allow the inclusion of assessment. different points of view. Annex I explains in detail the involvement of water quality experts through a task force and Selection of instruments two working groups. An initial selection process produced a list of more The IWA Task Force on Water Quality initiated than 80 suggested law and policy instruments. through the IWA member network provided A condensed list of 46 instruments for deeper initial technical advice and suggestions on water analysis was then extracted from this long list. The quality guidelines, the criteria used to analyse condensed list took into account the inputs and the selected water quality guidelines and the suggestions provided by working group members methodological approaches in terms of process and the following criteria: and content. 1. Type or nature of the document - Two working groups were created to support Documents that were not of legal or the Compendium by inviting high level experts policy nature, or did not provide a clear and decision makers in the field of water quality set of recommendations or guidance were removed; for example: environmental status 17 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

reports and enforcement decrees. These the methodology and scope of each chapter, latter documents were still included in the highlighting key findings and referencing case overall Compendium as complementary studies where possible to illustrate the topics instruments wherever appropriate. covered. 2. Region - In addition to global instruments, The draft database chapters and accompanying documents were shortlisted aiming for an narrative were shared with the working groups equal representation of all regions, namely for inputs and review. The members provided West Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, technical input and feedback over successive Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and drafts, adding sources and case studies where the Caribbean. possible. 3. Document accessibility - The availability of The Compendium will continue to be improved official supporting information or reliable and developed while simultaneously being translation was essential. disseminated to promote water use efficiency and contribute to global water security. A 4. Regulated water use - The selection summary of the contributions from working aimed to address a variety of economic group members and the comments and additions sectors and water uses including industrial, that resulted from the verification process is domestic, agricultural, mining, recreational, available in Annex II of this document. environmental and power generation. 5. Current status of implementation - The selection of instruments focused on those Users’ Guide implemented for many years and those currently in force. This criterion aimed to What can be found in this collect lessons learned to determine what document? instruments are effective, practical and better promote the wise use of water resources. The main part of this Compendium (Part I: Water Quality Regulatory Instruments) comprises 6. Working group expertise - An additional a database of compiled instruments and its criterion took into account the expertise accompanying narrative. Both database and of working group members, including narrative are divided into four descriptive chapters the availability of case studies and to reflect the analysis of the instruments, namely implementation experiences associated with scope, management frameworks, parameters particular instruments. and thresholds, and implementation. For each regulatory instrument (guidelines Each narrative chapter opens with an overview and standards, laws and policies), information of the methodology and a summary of key was compiled following the Compendium findings, illustrated with summary examples and chapter structure and the guiding questions case studies. These chapters conclude with a set of the criteria for analysis (see Table 1). Where of lessons learned or recommendations extracted available, complementary materials, related from current information in the database. regulatory instruments and case studies were Detailed information on the key findings and also included (see Part II: Case studies). examples can be found in the database and case The information about each instrument has been studies available in Part II. consolidated into a database organised into the ‘chapter’ structure. Additionally, a narrative has Part II of the Compendium has a selection of been developed to accompany each chapter case studies to illustrate information throughout in the database and facilitate its navigation. the chapters. Currently, examples include The narrative chapters are drafted to explain experiences from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Russia, South Africa and the Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 18

United States. These case studies highlight specific information and focus on one instrument efficient policies or regulations (past or present) at a time. with a regional representation. The column heading ‘ShortName’ is repeated A Glossary of Terms is included at the end of in each chapter of the database to indicate that the Compendium providing definitions of key the information belongs to the same regulation terms. This section unifies the terminology from or policy instrument. Each section or chapter different sources used in the Compendium and will contain information in text format but also contributes to further harmonisation in the hyperlinks to attached materials (Microsoft broader dialogue on water security. PowerPoint presentations, Adobe Acrobat PDF The annexes provide a set of templates for files, Microsoft Word files, etc.) and websites collection of feedback and inputs to be included accessible by clicking the respective cell. in the Compendium. This is provided to enable the continuous development of this tool and its permanent update.

How to use this document? The user can choose to explore the Compendium following the order established in the narrative. The different sections of the text will guide the reader from descriptive and generic topics in Chapter 1 towards more analytical aspects and experiences in Chapter 4. The chapters are designed as stand-alone documents to facilitate the reader to access the type of information that is most relevant for a given case. The reader can access a particular section in the narrative directly by clicking the respective heading in the table of contents. Case studies can be accessed directly, in alphabetical order, by reading Part II. Additionally, the reader can access a particular case study by clicking the link ‘read full case’. Access to the database is given through hyperlinks within each chapter. To display the database, the user can download the complete list of instruments and the tables for each chapter by clicking the box under the main heading. The respective section of the database will then appear as a Microsoft Excel file, where each row corresponds to an individual instrument. Additionally, the database can be accessed separately, using Microsoft Access. This version of the database allows the reader to search for 19 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Summary of Key Findings

1. Local and specialised instruments provide sound guidance for using different water qualities for different uses. There still needs to be coherence between sectors and geographical levels. Refe- rence to global guidelines in local regulatory implementation provides a consistent framework. 2. Effective regulations require that the implementing authority acts with independence and su- fficient powers to enforce regulations whether the authorities are centralised or delegated to the regional or local level. However, compliance is better achieved when users trust the imple- mentation and enforcement processes. This can be promoted with transparency and access to information. The IWA Lisbon Charter can be used as a point of reference for institutional and regulatory framework development. It provides a set of guiding principles for sound public poli- cies and regulation for water services including water quality (IWA, 2015).

3. At a local or catchment level, guidelines and standards are only good as the capacity of those im- plementing and controlling them. Investing in adequate training makes the difference between a good regulatory text and actually controlling water quality. Developing practical and user friendly tools for implementation can facilitate the task.

4. The enabling environment of the different water quality regulations is important. When deciding on an approach to regulate water quality for different uses, decision makers need to take part in cross sector/cross boundary dialogues. A clear definition of roles and competencies is pivotal to involve all relevant stakeholders in such dialogue.

5. Economic affordability and feasibility can be compatible with better water quality standards. Nonetheless, to support enforcement, financing and investments in implementation of water quality instruments are needed during the drafting process.

6. Rapidly evolving technology and infrastructure for improving water quality requires flexible and responsive regulators (e.g. when validating new water treatment technologies). An overarching framework for validating new innovations can support the replication of good practices and capacity building. The role of regulators is crucial to provide timely and effective responses, and thus institutional and management settings need to be coherent with such a framework. 7. Drafting and implementation processes can benefit from lessons learned in similar geographies. Reference to other jurisdictions by decision makers can identify opportunities for replicating best practices or possibilities for inter-institutional cooperation or institutional strengthening. The Compendium provides a starting point for this type of collaboration. Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 20 Custom title Goes here 99

Part I: Water Quality Regulatory Instruments

Part I of the Compendium provides an overview of selected laws and policies regulating water quality for different uses across geographical scales. Terminology used to describe the instruments is clarified. This is followed by a summary of the instruments listed in the Compendium and their main characteristics. The narrative of each chapter is presented along with access to the database. Following the chapters, the ‘Criteria for assessment’ are outlined. These criteria provide a checklist of what makes a particular law or policy a good instrument to regulate water quality.

the framework of policies, legislation and regu- Terminology lations covering the effects of pollutants or the Water quality guidelines and standards can adopt requirements with regard to a particular water a wide variety of instruments; from non-binding use. policy documents to treaties and regulations. A Glossary of Terms is provided to clarify the Additionally, different countries, languages and meaning of a certain approach or analysis, espe- legal systems use different terminology. cially where there is contradictory information or The Compendium uses the generic term ‘instru- different approaches. ments’ to enable the user to easily compare the wide range of regulatory tools such as guide- lines, laws and regulations. For the purpose of the Compendium, the term ‘instrument’ means the laws and policies regulating water quality. They constitute the ‘enabling environment’ or Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 22

Regardless of their binding power (such as Examples from each region provide an overview laws or regulations), these instruments can be of current water quality instruments applicable categorised as follows (Helmer & Hespanhol, at different geographical scales. 1997): To date, the Compendium comprises 46 law and • Water quality criterion: numerical policy instruments which have been analysed in concentration or narrative statement more depth covering a comprehensive range of recommended to support and maintain water uses. a designated water use; providing basic These are presented in Figure 2 according to scientific information about the effects of geographical scale. water pollutants on a specific water use. • Water quality objective (synonyms: water quality goal or target): a numerical List of guidelines and concentration or narrative statement that has standards been established to support and to protect the designated uses of water at a specific Annex III contains the list of instruments analysed site, river basin or part(s) thereof, taking into in the Compendium narrative chapters and consideration water quality criterion and provides core information including name of the a critical assessment of national priorities. regulation, year, country, region, main outcome A water quality objective is therefore a they are working towards and the available management decision and not a scientific online source. statement. The Compendium database includes guidelines • Water quality standard: an objective that is and standards that are not yet incorporated in recognised in enforceable environmental the chapters. They will be incorporated in future control laws or policies. The term is used editions as sufficient analysis and information in this Compendium to designate a general is gathered to provide sound references to the water quality rule that can be binding for Compendium user. users (when established by law or regulation) or non-binding (as when established by Direct download: policy such as guidelines) in which case they List of Selected (analysed) Guidelines are aspirational. List of Guidelines for future analysis Complete Database Overview of water [Excel] | [Access] quality regulatory instruments The Compendium contains a selection of recent water quality guidelines and standards for different uses. These are both binding and non-binding with common characteristics and approaches that make them innovative, practical and effective to promote wise use of water resources. The selected instruments are from a variety of sectors including drinking water, agriculture, bathing water, ecosystems and hydropower. 23 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? Figure 2 Regulatory instruments and case studies included in the Compendium according to geographical scale to geographical 2 Regulatory instruments and case studies included in the Compendium according Figure (G: Global; R: Regional; L: Local) Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 24

Overview of Compendium Chapters

The Compendium divides the analysis of water quality regulatory instruments into four descriptive chapters with their respective methodologies and key findings. Each chapter has criteria for analysis described in Table 1 (see below), and concludes with a set of conclusions or lessons learned extracted from the instruments currently available in the

Table 1 Criteria for analysis or guiding questions

CHAPTER CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS

Chapter 1: • What is the scope of the instrument? Scope • What is the background of the law or policy instrument? How were they developed; what is their history? • Towards what outcome are the water quality instruments working? • For what type of water use is the instrument developed? • What is the geographical scope of reference: global, regional, catchment, local or national? • What are the pre-conditions of application? What is needed for it to be implemented? • What type of legislation is usually in place? What capacity is required for implementation? Chapter 2: • Who is applying the instruments? What is the involvement of public or private Management entities relevant to management and application of the instruments? framework • What is the involvement of public or private entities relevant to related policies used for the application of the instruments? to apply the • Which public or private entities are subject to the instruments? instruments • What methods or approaches are used to apply the instruments? • Do the instruments refer to aquatic freshwater ecosystems? What are the specifics? • What other guidelines need to be considered? • Why do other guidelines need to be considered?

Chapter 3: Parameters, • What parameters do the guidelines cover? Indicators and • To what type of source are the guidelines applicable? Thresholds

Chapter 4: • What are the gaps in the application of the instruments regulating water quality Implementation (i.e. insufficient provisions, scope or lack of regulation)? • What measures are taken to enforce these instruments? • What are some emerging issues (e.g. suggestions of changes, harmonisation)? • What are some of the challenges (e.g. inadequate rules) and opportunities regarding their implementation? 25 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Chapter 1: Scope of the Law and Policy Instruments Download Chapter 1 from the Database

This chapter provides a description of the sco- (Department of Water and Forestry, 2006). pe of the laws and policy instruments regulating The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) water quality that have been included in the is an international instrument that has river ba- Compendium. Each instrument has been classi- sins as the main unit for managing water quality. fied according to geographical scope and outco- The countries implementing the WFD define river mes, namely Public Health, Aquatic Health and basin districts (RBDs) as one or more neighbou- Resource Efficiency (see below). ring river basins together with their associated The selection of instruments covered global, re- aquifers and coastal waters (Article 3.1 WFD). gional and local or national areas. Publicly avai- The Directive is then implemented through mea- lable information about guidelines regulating sures according to characterisation of these RDBs water quality in catchment areas proved to be and the results of an assessment of their status scarce. Instead, catchment provisions within na- (see Chapter 3 for details). tional and regional instruments were more com- The selected guidelines were divided into two mon, usually referred as a method for implemen- categories: single, for those that regulate one tation. single category of water use; and multiple, for For example, the South African Resource Quality those that regulate two or more categories of Objectives (RQOs) regulations make provision water uses. Both categories have instruments for catchment-level implementation (see Box that regulate or provide guidance for a variety 1 below). The RQOs are designed to apply to of uses, which are specified within the following Resource Units, which are portions of catchments main outcomes or categories of public health, with similar ecosystem conditions or settings aquatic health and resource efficiency. Box 1 The South African Water Quality Guidelines (SAWQG) of 1996

The SAWQG are a full suite aimed to address the three categories mentioned above: Public Health • SAWQG: Domestic Water Use • SAWQG: Recreational Water Use Resource Efficiency • SAWQG: Industrial Water Use • SAWQG: Agricultural Water Use: Irrigation • SAWQG: Agricultural Water Use: Livestock Watering • SAWQG: Agricultural Water Use: Aquaculture Aquatic Health • SAWQG: Aquatic Ecosystems The guidelines are currently being amended to adopt a risk-based methodology, which will take into account the risk to receptors or users (for example humans, crop yield). The amendment will also differentiate the guideline values in terms of spatial scale depending on the application. Conservative use, which can be adopted as a national range, will form part of tier 1 while the specific use at a localised level will form part of tier 2. Tier 2 will take into account the most vulnerable user, who should not be put at risk by the quality of the water. Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 26

The main outcome of many of the selected ins- • Ecosystem health, including environmental truments is to benefit public health. At the same uses, such as wetlands and aquifer recharge; time, instruments that improve or protect the en- vironment often have indirect health and resour- • Aquatic habitats, including wildlife, fisheries ce benefits. However, the classification applied and shellfish. in this Compendium responds to the immedia- Resource Efficiency: Although resource efficien- te objective of each instrument, namely public cy requirements generally comprise water qua- health, aquatic health and resource efficiency as lity requirements for different industries, this ca- follows. tegory of the Compendium comprises law and Public Health: Most of the selected water quality policy instruments that contribute towards im- instruments within the Compendium ultimate- proving the delivery of services or products such ly aim to protect public health or have a public as food, energy and other resources. health component. However, indirect health be- This category has 24 instruments of which most nefits are often a result of regulating water quali- (16) account for multiple uses, including those ty for the environment. In addition, water quality in which water is used for production that can guidelines for resource efficiency are designed to impact public health (e.g. food). The instruments protect water quality for different uses (including included as part of the resource efficiency outco- consumption). me include the following uses: For example, agricultural water use is indirectly • Industrial, comprising air dispersion (air con- linked to human health owing to possible bioac- ditioning, air cooling or industrial cooling), cumulation of chemicals in humans, as consu- impoundments (for mining activities as in mers of agricultural products. Nonetheless, in the ponds and artificial rivers), and food and be- Compendium only law and policy instruments verage production; that directly address the protection of human health are classified under the category of ‘Public • Irrigation, which includes agriculture (li- Health’. Within this outcome, the Compendium vestock watering as well as irrigation), and includes 28 instruments and the following uses: landscape irrigation (including gardens and sprinkling); • Domestic uses, comprising drinking water (tap and bottled) and sanitation (comprising • Aquaculture and fishing; toilet flushing and floor cleaning); • Firefighting; • Recreational, comprising waterfalls and • Urban cleaning (including, but not limited to, fountains, swimming, bathing, surfing and all types of roadway cleaning practices and similar. techniques); and Aquatic Health: This category contains all laws • Navigation. and policy instruments that contribute towards improving the health of ecosystems and the ser- vices they provide. This is the least populated category, with a total of 13 instruments out of which only three were exclusively dedicated to aquatic health. Most water quality provisions relating to aqua- tic health are actually part of industrial and food production or recreational water quality instru- ments. The aquatic health category comprises the following uses: 27 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Box 2 World Health Organization/ United Nations The scope and content of the guidelines is usually Environment Programme (WHO/UNEP) Guidelines for inspired by other regulatory instruments. Many the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Grey water in laws and regulations regulating water quality at Agriculture and Aquaculture 2006 a national and regional level are derived from older regulations and general policy instruments. The 2006 WHO/UNEP Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Grey water in For example, WHO guidelines are usually referred Agriculture and Aquaculture are a major update to as a baseline for local instruments, such as in the of their predecessor, the WHO 1989 guidelines. Australian National Health and Medical Research The old guidelines were more focused on water Council (NHMRC) Drinking Water Guidelines quality guideline values for reused water to be 2011, which refers to the 2011 WHO Guidelines safe; the 2006 guidelines are more flexible. for Drinking-water Quality (4th edition). Another However, the 2006 guidelines are also more example is the Brazilian National Environmental complex than their predecessors. These guidelines Council (CONAMA) Resolutions of which the are based on health-based targets and not only defined limits are based on regulations from water quality targets. Health-based targets can be different countries. In addition, the French achieved through treatment and non-treatment regulation on irrigation with reclaimed water options along the food chain. Health-based targets refers to the 2006 WHO/UNEP Guidelines for the establish a defined level of health protection for a Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Grey water given exposure, which can be based on a measure in Agriculture and Aquaculture (WHO, 2006) of disease or the absence of a specific disease related to that exposure. According to WHO, (see Box 2 above). ‘after the health target is defined, a combination of health protection measures that could achieve the target is specified’ (WHO, 2006). The complexity of the guidelines, however, may create difficulties when being transposed into national or local legislation. Although the guidelines are innovative and flexible, they may be less practical. Actual implementation of these guidelines is very limited. For broader implementation, operational approaches such as through Sanitation Safety Plans are currently being developed by WHO and IWA. Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 28

Key findings and recommendations

1. For global and general policy instruments to be accepted, they need to be incorporated into re- gional and local water quality instruments. Working with national and local governments to test new global guidelines provides evidence of their applicability. 2. When incorporating global or general provisions into local water quality instruments, it is impor- tant to consider the local context and requirements. 3. An indicator of the effectiveness of a global guideline can be determined by whether it is being translated into local regulations. 29 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Chapter 2: Management Frameworks Download Chapter 2 from the Database

This chapter showcases the different manage- Examples of regulatory bodies that issue and im- ment frameworks and institutional settings that plement the guidelines are the South African De- guide the implementation of the instruments in- partment of Water and Sanitation (formerly the cluded in the Compendium. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry) and Most instruments are issued and controlled by the Jordanian Water Regulatory Commission (to centralised administrations and ministries, whe- be established). In the case of Jordan, the Com- reas only a few depend on implementation mission will be established as part of the process through specialised agencies or local administra- of institutional reform that brought in a new wa- tion. ter law, policy and planning strategies.

Box 3 Canada’s Drinking Water Quality Guidelines

An example of guidelines issued by one authority but implemented by another can be found in Canada’s Drinking Water Guidelines. These guidelines contain a detailed analysis of contaminants, valuable for water regulators, and make up an important component of the multi-barrier approach to safe drinking water used by the federal and provincial governments. The guidelines are developed by the Canadian government (through Health Canada) in collaboration with representatives from provincial and territorial departments responsible for drinking water quality gathered in the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water. Canada has maintained a decentralised approach to drinking water quality. The guidelines are then published by Health Canada and implemented by each province or territory. Finally, municipalities participate in the implementation by overseeing operations of the treatment facilities. The Canadian government thus plays a scientific and research role to determine the content of the guidelines whereas the local authorities are in charge of using the guidelines as a reference in implementation and control. The competent administration in each province or territory can use the guidelines as the basis for their local water quality requirements: for example, incorporating them into their local legislation, referring them in new ones or including them as requirements for licenses and permits. This method for implementation can be an opportunity and a challenge for local authorities (see comments for these guidelines in the database). Provincial, territorial governments and municipalities have flexibility to adapt water quality requirements to their needs within the consistency of a national framework. They also have the sole responsibility for risk management and training. A possible disadvantage is that different jurisdictions with different standards may not take advantage of economies of scale when developing new technologies and duplication of efforts, which limits the overall effectiveness of measures taken to protect water resources. Secondly, devolved administrations need to be technically and financial prepared to apply and control approved standards. This also requires transferring sufficient skills to the operators in charge. Complementary tools, such as water safety plans provide a comprehensive risk assessment and risk management approach to address the need for training and communication protocols needed. Canada has developed a national approach similar to Water Safety Plans to be used by the provinces and territories when drafting their strategies (Health Canada, 2013). Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 30

Methods and approaches used for In the United States, the Safe Drinking Water implementation Act provides national authority for the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to Implementation of water quality instruments develop Maximum Contaminant Levels for can be fairly complex. International instruments drinking water. States or local entities can then global and regional are implemented in different develop their own standards as long as they are ways depending on their nature. Binding the same or more protective than the federal instruments, such as international agreements standards. The same is true for ambient waters, and regional legislation (like the European where under the Clean Water Act, the US EPA Union (EU) Directives), need to be incorporated sets water quality standards that can then be into the national framework and implemented adopted or made more protective than the through adapting mechanisms using national federal standards. or local regulations. Non-binding instruments Institutional issues may arise between different are implemented when drafting institutions levels of government, such as the US and voluntarily refer to them in local binding Canadian cases mentioned above, where the instruments (laws or regulations). Currently, the federal and state governments may have different Compendium includes ten regional instruments, approaches to implementation and enforcement of which the European regional framework is of these standards. For example, in the case of perhaps the most illustrative of the complexity Canada’s Drinking Water Quality Guidelines, around implementation (see Box 4 below). there are challenges and opportunities at the Implementation is often complemented by provincial and municipal levels. Implementing sectoral regulations and management tools. For authorities can benefit from the flexibility to example, municipal standards and local policies, adapt water quality requirements to their local issuing licences and permits are different needs but they also need to maintain consistency methods for implementation. These can be within the national framework, risk management established by different regulatory instruments and training (see Box 3 and Canada’s Water and even overseen by different authorities. In the Quality Guidelines in Part II). As an additional international regional context, for example, the step, both federal and provincial agencies in WFD establishes River Basin Management Plans Canada recommend moving beyond national (RBMPs) and Programme of Measures (PoMs) guidelines, and developing river-specific water developed and applied by the local authorities quality objectives. in each implementing state (see Box 4 below).

Box 4 The EU framework for water quality

In the EU, the framework for regulating water quality is set by Directives. Directives are regional legislation that ‘set out general rules to be transferred into national law by each country as they deem appropriate’ (European Commission, 2015a). Therefore, these instruments are binding to all Member States but require a national process to be applied. Member States of the EU have the responsibility for the correct and timely application of the directives. The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) establishes an overarching set of rules to protect and restore water across Europe, including the following directives: • Bathing Water (76/160) (now replaced by 2006/7); • Drinking Water (80/778, as amended by 98/83); • Urban Wastewater Treatment (91/271); • Nitrates (91/676); • Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control – IPPC (96/61), codified as Directive 2008/1/EC, repealed by Directive 2010/75/EU on Industrial Emissions, since 7 January 2014); and, • Sewage Sludge (86/278). 31 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Box 4 The EU framework for water quality (continued)

• Article 17 of the WFD establishes strategies for controlling pollution of groundwater, further developed by the Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC). In addition to the Nitrates, Urban Wastewater Treatment and IPPC Directives, the groundwater regulatory framework includes directives (European Commission, 2015b): • Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC); • Biocides (98/8/EC); • Landfill (99/31/EC); and, • Waste Framework (2006/12/EC). The EU system establishes objectives to protect water quality, which includes general protection of the aquatic ecology, specific protection of unique and valuable habitats, protection of drinking water resources, and protection of bathing water. In the WFD these objectives are condensed into ‘good ecological and chemical status for surface waters and good quantitative and chemical status for groundwater’. To achieve these objectives, the main implementation tool of the WFD consists of the establishment of RBMPs every six years. This management tool must integrate the measures to implement the various directives in a PoM which sets out the response to identified pressures in the basin to reach the water quality objectives (European Commission, 2015c). For surface water, the system for ecological protection of the WFD is complex given ecological variability across the EU community and the number of parameters considered, which includes the following: • biological quality, based on three or four biological groups; • physical/chemical quality, based on eight parameters; • quality of chemical substances, divided in two groups; • the river-basin-specific pollutants, a list of substances specific for the catchment; • chemical quality of the priority hazardous substances. Environmental quality standards (EQS) applicable to surface water are established by Directive 2008/105/EC, to limit the concentrations of certain chemical substances or groups of substances that pose a significant risk to the environment or to human health (i.e. priority pollutants). The European Commission and the Member States, together with stakeholder groups, take part in a Common Implementation Strategy (European Commission, 2015d) to enhance uniform implementation. Although the WFD is implemented in all countries of the EU, the standards of a substance or biological quality can differ between countries and exceptions can be made for each water body. For example, in the Netherlands information on the implementation of the WFD can be accessed through an online compendium (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, 2015). For detailed information, please visit the website or the following links by topic: • Water Framework Directive – General information about decision system WFD; • Quality surface water – The Ecological and Chemical Quality of the WFD in 2009; • Chemical quality – The substances which sometimes exceed the standard are listed; • Biological quality – The biological quality of the WFD with maps of the four biological groups; • Physical-Chemical – The eight parameters and maps of nitrogen and phosphorus; • River-basin-specific pollutants – The most important substances are given; • Fish migration – A map with the possibility of fish migration in streams and rivers; • Eutrophication in lakes – Information of all lakes is presented • Eutrophication in streams, ditches and canals; • Eutrophication of main rivers. Standards can be found at the government website (van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 2009) and at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM website). Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 32

Complementary instruments Common challenges: ecosystems Some of the challenges, such as consistency and Challenges can also arise from the many translating policy and legal instruments to the interactions and interdependencies of water local level, can be addressed if complemented by uses and the environment. Reference to certain instruments that aim at improving water complementary guidelines and other regulatory management and the capacity of operators. instruments can help water managers to identify In the case of the WHO Drinking Water Quality synergies between the approaches for regulating Guidelines (2011), additional guidance is water quality for different uses. provided through a preventive management The Compendium has analysed ten instruments framework – Water Safety Plans (WSPs) –, that refer directly to freshwater ecosystems, most health-based targets and surveillance. Although of them focusing on surface water. For example, there are global guidelines for the development the Turkish guideline provides for the creation of of WSPs, each context-specific WSP is developed catchment plans, outlines procedures for water by the respective water supply plant. quality classification and sets standards for the A WSP ‘comprises system assessment and design, water environment. The Brazilian framework operational monitoring and management plans for surface water quality (approved in 2005) (including documentation and communication)’, establishes a water quality classification based aiming to protect safe drinking water through on water uses and environmental standards ‘good water supply practice’ (WHO, 2005). The for freshwater, salt water and brackish water approach of using WSPs is a practical solution ecosystems, providing important tools for the to improve drinking water quality as the WHO management of these water resources (see Box Guidelines can be complex and difficult to fulfil. 7). Another example of a complementary approach Regulation of groundwater quality specifically for is the Green Drop program in South Africa. South ecosystem health is not common. The examples Africa’s municipalities face many challenges in of groundwater regulation in the Compendium providing effective water services to consumers, do not include provisions to protect ecosystems especially management of wastewater treatment that depend on groundwater. For example, the plants. Any wastewater treatment plant that is Turkish guideline for water pollution control not operating properly discharges effluent that 1998, amended in 2010; the Kenyan water damages the receiving water resource. quality regulation of 2006; and the Jordanian Water Strategy of 2009. The European framework The Green Drop certification programme was – under the umbrella of the WFD – also protects designed to serve as stimulus for change through groundwater as a resource without providing improving management of wastewater services. specific protection to groundwater-dependent The aim of the Green Drop programme is to create ecosystems (European Commission, 2015b). a paradigm shift of how wastewater operations, In Brazil, CONAMA Resolution 396 approved in management and regulation are approached. 2008 establishes a classification of groundwater It promotes incentive-based regulation by bodies into six subcategories with regard to establishing excellence as the benchmark for predominance of use and quality (Patole, wastewater services. The criteria focus on the 2009). This includes a Special Class, which is an effective management of wastewater services aquifer (or part of an aquifer) needed for the instead of the continuation of end-point preservation of ecosystems in protected areas, as monitoring and subsequent reactive operations well as groundwater bodies contributing directly (see full case study in Part II). to surface water that is also in a protected area. In addition, the resolution identifies areas of groundwater recharge and important surface 33 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

zones needed for maintaining groundwater Box 5 Groundwater governance: a global framework quality, as well as the necessary procedures such for action as zoning to manage these areas (Patole, 2009) “Groundwater governance: A global framework for action (2011–2014) - Regional diagnosis for The South African Domestic Use Guidelines 1996 the Sub-Saharan Africa Region” is the first pha- is an example that refers to both surface and se of a project to address insufficient regulatory groundwater to be used for potable supplies, mechanisms for groundwater and associated ecosystems for the Sub-Saharan Africa region. focussing on fitness for use instead of the type of water source.2 The South African water quality The project is supported by the Global Envi- guidelines for ecosystems are comprehensive ronment Facility (GEF) and implemented by the but do not specifically provide for groundwater- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United associated ecosystems. Nations (FAO), jointly with UNESCO’s Internatio- nal Hydrological Programme (UNESCO-IHP), the There are initiatives on groundwater that International Association of Hydrologists (IAH) aim to identify and promote best practices in and the World Bank. The project is designed to groundwater governance as a way of achieving raise awareness of the importance of ground- sustainable management of groundwater water resources for many regions of the world, resources (see Box 5 next). This includes and to identify and promote best practices in consideration of groundwater for a variety. groundwater governance as a way of achieving the sustainable management of groundwater resources. As a final result, the project will de- velop a global “Framework of Action”, consis- ting of a set of effective governance tools that include guidelines for policies, legislation, regu- lations and customary practices. The first phase of the project consists of a review of the global situation of groundwater governance and aims to develop a Global Groundwater Diagnostic that integrates regional and country experiences with prospects for the future (Braune & Adams, 2014).

2 Note that the South African Domestic Use Guidelines 1996 regulate water to be taken into water treatment works to be made potable, not for treated tap water. Tap water in South Africa has to comply with SANS241 (South African National Standard) Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 34

Key findings and recommendations

1. Whether instruments are enforced and controlled by a centralised administration and ministerial bodies or specialised agencies, the enforcing authority needs to have sufficient powers and ca- pacity to implement the regulations with independence. 2. Investment in the human resource capacity of regulatory authorities is needed for effective con- trol of water quality. 3. There needs to be an institutional and legal framework that ensures independence of the agency overseeing water quality controls. 4. Development of complementary approaches for implementation of water quality instruments can provide a practical solution when regulations are complex or difficult to fulfil. For example, Water Safety Plans provide a risk management framework, which can be tailored to a local water supplier to improve drinking water quality. 35 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Chapter 3: Parameters, Indicators and Thresholds adopted for Different Uses Download Chapter 3 from the Database

This chapter describes the different types of The Compendium provides a description of the criteria (i.e. parameters, indicators and thresholds) number of parameters contained in each selected used by the instruments in the Compendium. instrument. These include chemical (nutrients, It also describes the types of water and water inorganic and organic compounds, including sources that are being regulated. A definition metals, pesticides and emergent compounds), of these terms is outlined in the Glossary of physical (temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, Terms. Additional reference to complementary oxygen saturation, total dissolved materials, instruments and norms is made when they are suspending solid material, colour, etc.), biological needed for effective implementation of the (cyanobacterial, chlorophyll-a), ecotoxicological instruments. (chronic and acute toxicity) and microbiological According to the type of criteria adopted by (faecal coliforms or thermotolerant coliforms, each guideline or regulation, instruments may E. coli, enterococci, protozoa, helminths, be divided into two major groups: enterovirus) parameters. • Instruments with prescribed standards (e.g. An increasing number of instruments also EPA reuse guidelines) including numerical reference radiological parameters. These standards (e.g. maximum concentration of parameters indicate the guidance levels for pollutants), treatment standards (specified radionuclides present in a water sample. The treatment processes) or standards for instruments generally refer to Indicative Dose materials used for water treatment and Criteria (IDC is the WHO term also known as TID distribution. or Total Indicative Dose in the case of the EU Drinking Water Directive) instead of indicating Instruments based on risk assessment and • levels for specific radionuclides. risk management (e.g. WHO 2006 reuse guidelines and the WHO Drinking Water In the case of microbiological parameters, water Guidelines 2011). This is a holistic approach quality instruments traditionally use bacteria as that addresses the risk to water quality from indicator organisms that demonstrate presence source to user. of faecal contamination (human and animal). The criteria are designed to protect people Which parameters are the most useful? from illness due to accidental ingestion or any direct contact (primary contact in recreational Water quality objectives are management uses) with the polluted water environment. decisions. Thus, not only do they rely on However, it has been stated that there is no scientific statements but also on policy decisions direct correlation between numbers of these that consider factors such as enforcement indicators and enteric pathogens (Ashbolt, et capacity and costs. Parameters that provide al., 2001). Additionally, waterborne illness can the highest protection are those with scientific also originate in viruses and parasitic protozoa. evidence that are directly related to public Thus, regulatory agencies use these indicators health, including faecal coliforms, Escherichia for the potential they represent to demonstrate coli (E. coli), helminth eggs and organic matter. faecal contamination and consequently that of For environmental protection, strong parameters ‘pathogens capable of causing human illnesses’ are those that measure nutrients and refer to (US EPA, 2004). In this context, it is necessary ecotoxicology standards. to tailor the choice and number of indicators Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 36

to local circumstances to provide adequate Common challenges and opportunities protection. A common challenge when regulating water Key faecal indicator micro-organisms quality parameters is that guidelines are often include coliforms, thermotolerant coliforms, based on the ability to analyse for a constituent E. coli, faecal streptococci, enterococci, and reflect the level of detection of a substance sulphite-reducing clostridia, Clostridium rather than a critical concentration in the perfringens, bifidobacteria, bacteriophages environment. Some common challenges and (phages), coliphages and Bacteroides fragilis their respective opportunities with the use of bacteriophages (Ashbolt, et al., 2001). E. coli particular parameters are described below. and enterococci levels are usually chosen for drinking and recreational waters. The Compendium makes special reference to Box 6 The German Drinking Water Ordinance (2001) enterococci as a key faecal indicator. E. coli is usually the indicator with more traditional The German Drinking Water Ordinance (2001) applicability and is included in water quality established Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), Tole- regulations for marine and fresh waters with rable Daily Intake (TDI) or Reference Dose (RfD) thresholds set as E.coli per 100 ml volume. values as the bases for evaluation. If these values However, recent regulations demonstrate that are not available, information on biological en- measuring enterococci levels is preferred over E. dpoints such as genotoxicity or neurotoxicity is coli and faecal coliforms, as it is a ‘more stable taken into account. Depending on the amount of toxicological information available for speci- indicator’ and thus ‘more conservative’ under fic substances, Germany has developed a Heal- brackish water conditions (Jin et al., 2004). th-Related Indicator Value (HRIV), which assumes For example, the US EPA has recommended drinking water consumption is 2 litres per day per the use of enterococci for marine recreational person for 70 years. Consuming drinking water waters because levels of these organisms more under these conditions will not lead to health-re- accurately predict acute gastrointestinal illness lated concerns, because the precautionary princi- than levels of faecal coliforms (US EPA, 2012). ple is the basis of the evaluation. A new HRIV will always be higher than the previous one because Comparison of standards and limits a worst-case scenario is assumed. This also avoids the obligation to set more restrictive cut-off va- An interesting exercise is the comparison of lues when additional information becomes avai- indicator limits and standards applied by different lable. Figure 3 explains how HRIV are determined instruments for similar uses. For example, the per substance. current version of the Compendium includes a However, there may also be simplifications. In comparison of two guidelines regulating water the German Drinking Water Ordinance, all plant quality for freshwater ecosystems (South Africa protection products (such as pesticides, insecti- and Turkey). The comparison shows the specific cides, herbicides) are treated equally, e.g. they parameters measured in different types of water all fall into the same cut-off value (0.1 µg/l). The sources (e.g. inland protected areas, coastal guideline does not take into account how toxic areas and sea water, and all freshwater aquatic plant protection products really are. This makes sources). The exercise provides details of a broader the guideline easy to use, but can cause problems policy decision that considers factors such as once the limit is exceeded. Identifying how toxic level of protection and economic affordability a substance really is and determining a cut-off va- or technical capacity (see further discussion in lue based on toxicological considerations might Chapter 4). Download the comparison example not be easy. here. 37 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Figure 3 Determination of Health-Related Indicator Value (HRIV) Note. For substances with known genotoxicity and metabolic relevance in humans, the HRIV is set to 0.01 µg/l. Three HRIVs can be allocated to non-genotoxic substances: 0.3 µg/l for neuro- or immune-toxic compounds, 1.0 µg/l for chemicals with sub-chro- nic toxicity and 3.0 µg/l for compounds that induce chronic toxicity. Owing to the large number of different chemicals For example, the Australian drinking water that might be found in drinking water, it is guidelines 2011 are very comprehensive and virtually impossible to regulate all compounds. the deduction of each cut-off value is explained. This is because only limited or no toxicological However, the document has more than 1300 data are available for most substances. For pages, so might be considered too complex and instance, the German Drinking Water Ordinance onerous to use effectively. (2001) established Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) or Reference Dose Challenges remain in regulating the presence of (RfD) values as the bases for evaluation (see Box nitrogen in the water environment. For example, 6). the US EPA initiated a strategy to develop region-specific numeric water quality criteria for Guidelines that are comprehensive can present nutrients to provide better protection to aquatic both advantages and disadvantages. Inclusion ecosystems from eutrophication. This effort of various substances and estimation of cut-off exemplifies the complexity in establishing water values for each substance can result in a very quality standards to meet ecological goals in high acceptance values, because limits are clearly water quality management (see full case ‘United defined. However, users may feel discouraged to States water quality criteria for nitrogen’ in Part use an instrument that seems too complicated. II). Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 38

Key findings and recommendations

1. Classification of water bodies by what they are used for (e.g. protected area, recreational use, etc.) before treatment and effluent discharge control can improve efficiency because this allows selection of relevant parameters for testing water quality. 2. When selecting parameters and designing indicators, these should be relevant to specific water use. This is especially relevant when comparing with other water quality instruments. 3. Comprehensive water quality guidelines can have very many parameters, leading to users being discouraged from implementation. Appropriate tools and a framework can support implemen- tation of complicated guidelines, thus improving acceptance (e.g. Water Safety Planning). 4. New approaches to water toxicity evaluation, through bioassays or the “health-related indicator value”, such as those developed by Germany, should be included in the guideline criteria, when appropriate. 39 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Chapter 4: Implementation of Water Quality Guidelines Download Chapter 4 from the Database

This chapter provides an overview of challenges provinces and territories. Lax standards in one and opportunities in the enforcement and province or territory can directly affect the application of the selected guidelines and general effectiveness of standards set by neighbouring recommendations on their implementation. provinces in the same watershed. Therefore The main issues are enforceability, flexibility, collaboration between provinces is necessary to transparency, cross-sector coordination and effectively implement recreational water quality transboundary conflicts. standards. An example of an effective mechanism to enhance collaboration between governments Enforceability is the International Joint Commission for the US/ Voluntary-based instruments and excessive Canada Great Lakes (in Part II see case ‘Three delegation of duties may affect enforceability, examples of law and policy instruments…’). depending on the financial and technical capacity of local authorities. Other issues that may affect Transparency the effective implementation of these instruments Transparency and participation concerns are also are inadequate division of powers, lack of issues that need to be considered, including lack sufficient mandate for control and monitoring, of public access to information on enforcement and lack of clear penalties for non-compliance. and compliance, lack of provisions for active In the case of the Canadian Guidelines for community participation, and lack of focus on Water Quality, there are no provisions for the growing populations placing stress on water division of duties and responsibilities among resources. administrative bodies. In the Jordanian Water The EU Water Framework Directive expressly Strategy, the Project Management Unit (PMU) encourages community participation (Article 14) under the Ministry of Health has the function of but this tends to be consultation rather than active ‘enforcement’ of water quality parameters but participation. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the actual powers to enforce compliance are this provision requires Member States to develop not defined in the rules of operation. Another sufficient mechanisms to actually incorporate example is the Kenyan Water Quality Regulation, public participation into decision making, which does not set enforcement or penalties for which can vary between countries (European non-compliance. Commission, 2003; Palaniappan, et al., 2010). Transboundary conflicts In Jordan, quality standards are established Cross-boundary policy and legal instruments through technical norms set at central government often have enforceability issues which emerge level (Ministry of Water and Irrigation, PMU). from insufficient mechanisms to adequately However, information related to enforcement cope with conflicts. For example, the Canadian and compliance is not publicly accessible, Guidelines for Recreational Water Quality only resulting in concerns over transparency. become legally enforceable if the individual provinces and territories adopt them into Cross-sector coordination provincial or territorial legislation. Consequently, The lack of integration between competent this has the potential to lead to conflict over authorities often causes competition between water quality control between neighbouring different uses, such as between industrial production of food and environmental Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 40

protection. This can lead to regulatory gaps, for adequate infrastructure financing (see more in example to appropriately deal with agricultural Part II). and even urban non-point source pollution. In Brazil, there is promotion of conservation For example, China faces serious water quality and improvement of surface and groundwater and availability issues, in part owing to rapid quality to support multiple uses; however, this urbanisation, population growth and climate also presents some enforcement gaps and change. Six national technical standards on challenges. The different effluent standards wastewater reuse were established between across industries, as well as coordination with 2002 and 2005. These standards allowed for authorities from other sectors are some of the the development of an effective reclaimed main challenges. Lack of coordination also entails water system nationwide, and improvement compatibility issues between implementing tools of the reliability and performance of municipal such as sanitation plans and water quality goals wastewater treatment processes (Yi, et al., (see Box 7 below). 2011). To better manage the water needs of different water users, these guidelines need to be complemented with capacity development, integrated water resources management and

Box 7 Brazil CONAMA water quality resolutions

The National Environmental Council (CONAMA) Resolutions are the framework for the environmental public policies in Brazil. These resolutions comprise a group of water quality regulations that have been implemented in Brazil since 1986 and complemented by successive instruments over subsequent years to address use-related requirements and pollution control of surface and groundwater resources. These instruments address recreational (primary and secondary contact) and aquatic ecosystem uses, among others such as water supply sources for drinking, aquaculture, livestock watering, shellfish farming and irrigation. The CONAMA Resolutions were developed to promote the conservation and improvement of surface and groundwater quality to support multiple uses: • The resolution that controls water use for recreational bathing (CONAMA Res. 294, issued in 2000) was supported by a local epidemiological study and has standards based on faecal coliforms, E. coli and Enterococcus, as well as recommendations for pathogenic monitoring and studies in sand quality. It also defines sampling procedures and the procedures to limit access to such areas. • CONAMA Resolution 357, issued in 2005, establishes ambient water quality standards according to different uses, using a classification system. Fresh water, brackish water and saline water are classified in a set of categories relating uses and their respective quality requirements. Figure 4 shows the five freshwater classes according to these water uses (ANA, 2012). Each category has specific physical and chemical parameters such as pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, temperature and several other general requirements, followed by a list of concentration limits for inorganic and organic chemicals, cyanobacteria, chlorophyll-a and faecal indicators. Water quality goals are established for water bodies according to this classification system and effluent discharges have to respect these goals. • CONAMA Resolution 396, issued in 2008, also establishes the classification of groundwater bodies and threshold values for water quality indicators to define beneficial uses and to provide input for zoning of protection areas. It strongly depends on monitoring and management instruments to link land use zoning and groundwater protection. The challenge in fully applying this regulation is a need for reference (background) values for the different parts of the aquifer. • CONAMA Resolution 430, issued in 2011, complements Resolution 357 and establishes standards for industry and wastewater treatment plant effluents released into water bodies. These resolutions are 41 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Box 7 Brazil CONAMA water quality resolutions (continued)

approved at the federal level but the state environmental agencies are also responsible for enforcement and respective penalties. The Resolution determines that, despite the standards established for effluents, discharges into surface waters may not change the quality of the receiving body. An innovative approach in these Resolutions is the establishment of chronic and acute toxicity criteria for ecosystems.

CLASSES OF SURFACE FRESHWATER BODIES

Figure 4 Classes of Surface Freshwater Bodies According to Their Uses (ANA, 2012). Note. Surface freshwater in the “special” class must be maintained in pristine condition. In classes 1 to 4 an increasing level of pollution is permitted, resulting that only less stringent water uses (e.g. Navigation and landscape amenity) are possible in class 4. Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 42

Flexibility analysis within the text of these regulations, Water quality regulations can promote or could improve flexibility to enable innovation. hinder innovation of technology, processes A unified regulatory framework with coherent and infrastructure for more efficient use of implementation measures at different water resources. For example, regulations can geographical scales is crucial for innovation. include provisions to allow alternative sanitation Rapidly evolving technology solutions and measures, promote water efficient technologies infrastructure need regulators that are prepared in industry or encourage water-saving irrigation to respond in a timely manner. technologies and processes. When implementation requirements and The lack of such provisions has been seen as a procedures are not coordinated there is a risk of problem of rigidity in cases such as the German duplication of efforts across geographies as well Drinking Water Ordinance 2001 and the Russian as associated costs. The distribution of capacity requirements for drinking water quality. Further building and financial resources can become consideration of actual water uses and scientific the cause of inequality between places with Box 8 Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling 2006 The Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling (AGWR 2006) promote a risk management framework based on the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG 2004) and the WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality (WHO, 2011). A National Recycled Water Regulators Forum supports uniform application of the guidelines. One of the 12 components of this risk management framework is the validation of water treatment tech- nologies before a particular recycling scheme is made operational. Specific water quality requirements are established separately for the different parts of the country and generally according to use. Validation aims to determine how well a technology can improve the quality of the source water to meet the respective water quality requirement. Validation is the ‘substantiation of a technology’s (or process’) ability to effectively control hazards’; which in practice translates into the confirmation by the authority that a particular treatment technology ‘meets the performance target allocated to that technology’. The validation process is undertaken through scien- tific testing in laboratories or in-situ, and validation methods differ for different technologies (Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence, 2015). Although the guidelines described the concept, they did not establish a consistent approach for validation of treatment technologies across the country. As a result, stakeholders described the scheme as complex, slow and costly, hindering innovative and equal development. For stakeholders (Aither, 2012; Muston & Halliwell, 2011), the absence of a unified regulatory system has resulted in the following: • Similar technologies validated in one territory will need to be validated again in others where the operation takes place. This means that regulators will have to replicate the process and the costs as- sociated with validation in each jurisdiction. • Since the validation process is not unified, there will be differences in requirements and protocols as well as in the approach that each regulator will undertake. This not only creates uncertainty among stakeholders but also increases the workload of regulators in guiding proponents, thereby slowing down the process and making it hard to keep up with evolving technology. This example demonstrates a gap in knowledge, and the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence has led the development of a national validation framework which is nearing completion. Development of the framework has involved input from the National Recycled Water Regulators Forum, process manufac- turers and recycled water providers. The framework and its associated protocols aim to reduce duplication across jurisdictions, providing greater certainty for manufacturers, and reduce implementation costs. 43 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

similar activities, technologies and regulations. effect in 2007, increasing the existing protection The case of regulating the use of recycled water levels substantially. The new standard was in Australia illustrates this point in Box 8. prepared with reference to the WHO Guidelines The lack of flexibility or adaptability in water for Drinking-water Quality (WHO, 2008) and quality laws and policies is a factor that can the EU Drinking Water Directive (The Council of intensify emerging issues, such as climate change the European Union, 1998). Compared with its and increasing rates of population, which can in predecessor, the new regulation increased the turn lessen their effectiveness. Extreme climatic levels of protection substantially: from only a 35 events, such as droughts and floods, are more parameter index with the old standard issued in frequent, severe and widespread, which can result 1985, to an index with 106 parameters including in destabilisation of ecosystems, also impacting micro-contamination, similar to those proposed human livelihoods and supporting infrastructure. by the WHO. Flooding, in addition to its direct impacts on However, only the biggest cities have been able to infrastructure, can lead to the contamination of reach this standard, with many smaller cities first water sources by wastewater and solid waste. needing maintenance and updating of their water Similarly, droughts can reduce water quality treatment systems and distribution networks. because lower water flows reduce the dilution The biggest challenge for local governments of pollutants and increase contamination of has been the financing of investments in the remaining water sources (Wilk & Wittgren, infrastructure. Especially in western regions, with 2009). current water prices –which account for 1.5% Adaptability of the family income – local government cannot afford upgrades to existing treatment facilities. Effective regulation of water quality is a complex and dynamic task. It is an exercise in which decision makers synthesise considerations of human health and economic affordability. Higher standards aim for better quality of water – which makes people healthier – but they also require higher investments. Therefore, determination of adequate standards – i.e. those that effectively meet their objectives – will necessarily differ between developed and developing economies. To find the right balance between these two factors (i.e. consideration of human health and economic affordability), decision makers can choose to adapt standards or their enforceability. Reducing protection levels down to achievable objectives can facilitate regulations to be enforced. However, this option will also prevent the modernisation of regulations when more resources are available for improving water quality. Using non-binding instruments can be an option to introduce high levels of protection and progressive implementation of the norms without affecting their reliability. For example, the Chinese National Standard for Drinking Water Quality (GB 5749-2006) came into Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 44

Key findings and recommendations

1. Incorporation of provisions that address the impacts of climate change or the occurrence of ex- treme events will contribute to a more resilient framework for water quality. 2. Balancing the powers and duties of implementing authorities should give special consideration to factors such as financial and technical burdens. 3. There needs to be adequate division of powers among agencies, with a sufficient mandate for controlling and monitoring, and clear penalties for non-compliance. 4. Transparency and public participation facilitates acceptability and compliance, enabling better implementation. Regulatory authorities are encouraged to ensure public access to enforcement and compliance information, active community participation and consideration of the impacts of emerging issues such as population growth. 5. Water quality instruments should allow adaptability of regulations to include new technologies, processes and infrastructure, and to enable and promote innovation for more efficient water resource use. 6. Water quality issues need to be incorporated into transboundary management plans and conflict mitigation measures. 7. Policies from different sectors, including water quality management (e.g. environment, sani- tation, industry, agriculture), ideally need to be harmonised or at least recognise water quality controls for different uses. 45 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Criteria for Assessment

The criteria for assessment are one of the key 4. Is there a baseline against which future outputs of this Compendium but also a tool for situations can be assessed should be its continuous development and update. The established (i.e. benchmarking)? Have the criteria highlight key information that the reader parameters that have been included in the should look into when using the Compendium as baseline assessment been identified and a reference. They also suggest areas where more aligned with the pre-established monitoring information is needed and can be improved in and evaluation schedule? the Compendium. 5. Is there access to information about the The criteria were developed in the process of facilities that have permits to discharge answering the following question: what makes pollutants? For example, this could be a particular law or policy a good instrument to through a water pollution database. regulate water quality? The response is a list of Is there a regulatory framework that enables aspects to be considered in the drafting, content, 6. public acceptance of the respective water management and implementation of the various quality requirements? Effective water quality water quality instruments. guidelines are a progressive work that has Good instruments are those that meet their to be improved and adapted according to objectives efficiently. The following criteria regional differences and emerging needs. are thus suggested to determine whether an instrument is effective or not, answering the following questions:

1. Are the objectives sufficiently clear so that they can be monitored through a set of indicators? For example, a reduction in the concentration of one or more particular water quality parameters, the frequency of incidence of non-compliance, etc. 2. Are there monitoring and evaluation schedules? This includes a description of monitoring and evaluation practices, with specification of numbers of samples, frequencies of sampling, sources of samples, and parameters tested. 3. Is there laboratory analytical capacity and quality control, ensured by having analyses conducted by an accredited laboratory (e.g. the South African National Accreditation System; in Brazil, the National Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology)? Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 46 CustomCustom titletitle Goes here 9 9

Bibliography

Aither, 2012. National Validation Framework for Water Treatment Technologies—Business Case, Brisbane: Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence.

ANA, 2012. Table 2 - Classes of Surface Freshwater Bodies According to Their Uses. In: Surface Freshwater Quality in Brazil - Outlook 2012. Brasilia, DF: Agência Nacional de Águas (ANA), 2012.

Ashbolt, N. J., Grabow, W. O. & Snozzi, M., 2001. Chapter 13: Indicators of microbial water quality. In: L. Fewtrell & J. Bartram, eds. Water quality: Guidelines, standards and health - Assessment of risk and risk management for water-related infectious disease. s.l.:WHO by IWA Publishing.

Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence, 2015. Road Map for a National Validation Framework. [Online] Available at: http://www.australianwaterrecycling.com.au/projects/road- map-for-a-national-validation-framework [Accessed 30 March 2015].

BASF, 2015. Genotoxicity [Online] Available at: http://www.alternative-methods.basf.com/group/ corporate/alternatives/en/microsites/alternatives/methods-in-use/genotocity [Accessed 30 March 2015].

Braune, E. & Adams, S., 2014. Groundwater governance: A global framework for action (2011- 2014) - Regional diagnosis for the Sub-Saharan Africa Region, s.l.: University of the Western Cape; Water Research Commission. Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 48

Department of Water and Forestry, 2006. Guideline for Determining Resources Water Quality Objectives (RWQOs), Allocatable Water Quality and the Stress of the Water Resource. 2. ed. Pretoria: Department of Water and Forestry.

European Commission, 2003. Public Participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

European Commission, 2012. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) River Basin Management Plans, s.l.: European Commission.

European Commission, 2015a. Legislation. [Online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/legislation/index_ en.htm [Accessed 11 March 2015].

European Commission, 2015b. Environment. Groundwater in the Water Framework Directive. [Online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/groundwater/ framework.htm [Accessed 11 March 2015].

European Commission, 2015c. Environment. Introduction to the new EU Water Framework Directive. [Online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/info/intro_en.htm [Accessed 11 March 2015].

European Commission, 2015d. Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive & the Floods Directive. [Online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/ objectives/implementation_en.htm [Accessed 23 June 2015].

Grummt, T. et al., 2013. Tox-Box: securing drops of life - an enhanced health-related approach for risk assessment of drinking water in Germany. Environmental Sciences Europe, Volume 25.

Helmer, R. & Hespanhol, I. eds., 1997. Water Pollution Control - A Guide to the Use of Water Quality Management Principles. London: E & FN Spon on behalf of WHO/UNEP/WSSCC.

IWA, 2015. The Lisbon Charter: Guiding the Public Policy and Regulation of Drinking Water Supply, Sanitation and Wastewater Management Services. s.l.:International Water Association.

Jin, G., Englande, A. J., Bradford, H. & Jeng, H., 2004. Comparison of E. coli, Enterococci, and Fecal Coliform as Indicators for Brackish Water Quality Assessment. Water Environment Research, 76(3), pp. 245-255.

Muston, M. & Halliwell, D., 2011. NatVal Road Map Report - The road map to a national validation, Adelaide: Water Quality Research Australia Limited.

OECD, 2001a. Water Use. [Online] Available at: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=2915 [Accessed 30 March 2015].

OECD, 2001b. Glossary of Statistical Terms. [Online] Available at: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail. asp?ID=78 [Accessed 30 March 2015]. 49 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

OECD, 2001c. Recreational land and associated surface water. [Online] Available at: http://stats.oecd. org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=2257 [Accessed 30 March 2015].

OECD, 2001d. Glossary of Statistical Terms. [Online] Available at: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail. asp?ID=1271 [Accessed 30 March 2015].

OECD, 2001e. Glossary of Statistical Terms. [Online] Available at: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail. asp?ID=678 [Accessed 30 March 2015].

OECD, 2001f. Glossary of Statistical Terms. [Online] Available at: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail. asp?ID=1271 [Accessed 30 March 2015].

OECD, 2001g. Non-Point source of pollution. [Online] Available at: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/ detail.asp?ID=1820 [Accessed 30 March 2015].

OECD, 2007. Brackish water. [Online] Available at: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=7337 [Accessed 30 March 2015].

OECD, 2012. OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050, s.l.: OECD Publishing.

OECD, 2014a. Green Growth Indicators 2014, OECD Green Growth Studies, Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD, 2014b. Green Growth Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Palaniappan, M. et al., 2010. Clearing the Waters, A focus on water quality solutions. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.

Patole, M., 2009. How the national water laws of Brazil address groundwater abstraction and pollution control?. [Online] Available at: http://www.academia.edu/6784195/How_the_national_water_ laws_of_Brazil_address_groundwater_abstraction_and_pollution_control [Accessed 30 June 2015].

Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, 2015. Het Compendium voor de Leefomgeving. [Online] Available at: http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/ [Accessed 11 March 2015].

Recycled Water in Australia, 2015. What is recyled water?. [Online] Available at: http://www. recycledwater.com.au/index.php?id=46 [Accessed 30th June 2015].

The Council of the European Union, 1998. Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption. s.l.:Official Journal.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment. Washington, DC.: s.n.

UN Water, 2014. Thematic Priority Area: Water Quality. [Online] Available at: http://www.unwater.org/ activities/thematic-priority-areas/water-quality/en/ [Accessed 23 June 2015].

UNDP, 2006. Human Development Report 2006, New York: UNDP. Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 50

US EPA, 2004. Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters. Washington, DC: s.n.

US EPA, 2012. Recreational Water Criteria. s.l.:Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Science and Technology, United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 2009. Staatsblad. [Online] Available at: https://zoek. officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb-2010-15.html [Accessed 23 June 2015].

WHO, 2005. Water Safety Plans: Managing drinking-water quality from catchment to consumer. Geneva: World Health Organization 2005.

WHO, 2006. Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater. Geneva: World Health Organization.

WHO, 2008. Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality - incorporating 1st and 2nd addenda. 3 ed. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Wilk, J. & Wittgren, H. eds., 2009. Adapting Water Management to Climate Change. s.l.:2009, Swedish Water House (SWH).

WWAP, 2012. The United Nations World Water Development Report 4: Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk, Paris: UNESCO.

Yi, L., Jiao, W. & Chen, X. a. C. W., 2011. An overview of reclaimed water reuse in China. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 23(10), pp. 1585-1593. 51 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? CustomCustom titletitle Goes here 99

Part II: Case studies

Case studies showcase best practices and different methodological approaches to regu- late water quality requirements for different uses. They illustrate the different themes and topics included in the Compendium in order to identify the characteristics that make an instrument efficient, innovative and practical, considering different uses and geographical scales.

The case studies are a first step in a broader dia- Structure and content logue on water quality. It is the very purpose of this Compendium to encourage officials, prac- The structure of the case studies follows a tem- titioners and decision makers in general to join plate (see below). Cases are divided into sections, this dialogue by adding information and new each one containing a list of guiding questions. perspectives to the current analysis, or even by Guiding questions have been drafted to orient contradicting the opinions provided in them. the content of the sections so that it aligns with the Compendium chapters. Each case study re- Download the Template flects local or specific situations and focuses on selected topic areas. Unlike the rest of the Compendium, the infor- mation conveyed in each case study is provided by an identified author. This allows room for opi- nions and analysis of instruments and practices through the author’s perspective. The cases do not provide official information on regulatory instruments, nor have they been endorsed by the countries unless otherwise stated. 53 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Case Study Summaries

In this section, case studies referred to in Part I are summarised. To access the full text of each case study, please click the hyperlink ‘read full case’.

Canada’s Water Quality Guidelines in violation of national standards. Between the years 1993 and 2004, the coverage of safe wa- The federal Guidelines for Canadian Drinking ter for drinking increased to 84%. However, this Water Quality serve as a competent guide to was still far from excellent drinking water quali- drinking water quality governance in Canada. ty as defined by international standards (99% of However, there are a number of recommenda- safe water coverage). To pursue this goal, a new tions for effective implementation. These include regulatory model for drinking water quality was the uniform enforcement of provincial standards established based on the European Drinking Wa- across the country, proper accreditation and ope- ter Directive 98/83/CE. Ten years after its imple- rational planning, and the identification of risk mentation, safe water coverage in Portugal has management priorities. Solving Canada’s water reached 98% and new tools –like water safety resource problems requires the accommodation plans– are being implemented to achieve 99% of various competing interests, innovations and coverage. Read full case leadership to address emerging complexity and policy coordination at all political and adminis- South African Green Drop Certification trative levels. Read full case for Excellence in Wastewater Treatment China Reclaimed Water Reuse Plant Operation Regulations Municipalities in South Africa face many challen- China faces serious water quality and availability ges in providing effective water services to con- challenges due to rapid urbanization, population sumers, especially with regard to the manage- growth and climate change. Six national techni- ment of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). cal standards on wastewater reuse were establi- Any WWTP not operating properly discharges shed between 2002 and 2005 which allowed for effluent which damages the receiving water re- the development of an effective reclaimed water source. The Green Drop certification programme system nationwide, resulting in the improvement was designed to serve as a stimulus for change; of the reliability and performance of municipal a catalyst to establish motivation and leadership wastewater treatment processes (Yi et al., 2011). in the water sector regarding the management To maintain and continue water quality improve- of wastewater services. The aim of the Green ment there needs to be capacity development, Drop programme is to create a paradigm shift integrated water resources management and by which wastewater operations, management the development of financing instruments. Read and regulation is approached. It promotes incen- full case tive-based regulation; establishing excellence as the benchmark for wastewater services. The cri- Portugal’s Drinking Water Quality teria focus on the effective management of was- Regulatory Model tewater services instead of the continuation of end-point monitoring and subsequent reactive Twenty years ago the Portuguese legal fra- operations. Read full case mework for drinking water quality could only guarantee 50% of safe water, with the remai- ning supply being beyond authorities’ control or Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 54

The eMalahleni Water Reclamation Plant the ‘one out/all out’ method. This means that in South Africa specific improvements to improve water quality do not always have a positive effect on the final Mining is always a challenge, especially in water indicator. Consequently, this could also genera- stressed regions. Safety and environmental pro- te worse results for member states which have blems caused by rising underground mine water comprehensive monitoring which includes more in eMalahleni were addressed by mining opera- parameters. Therefore, besides the final indicator tors implementing a water reclamation system. of the ecological quality, it is advisable that the Currently, the plant purifies 30 Ml/d to potable most important underlying indicators are also quality and covers almost 20% of the total po- shown. The following case study illustrates the table water demand. eMalahleni is an example advantages and disadvantages in the implemen- of how wise water management can provide a tation of this Directive to assess water quality common solution by addressing interests of both using The Netherlands as example. Read full case the mining industry and the local community. Read full case Three examples of law and policy instruments addressing water quality The Flemish Decree on Integrated Water issues caused by climate change Policy Why should climate change be considered when Belgium has a complicated government structu- regulating water quality? Climate change affects re and Flanders in particular is characterized by all elements of the water cycle, but examples poor surface and ground water quality, excessi- of instruments regulating water quality are still ve water use and increasing flooding risks. The quite scarce. The cases summarised in this text Decree on Integrated Water Policy attempts to demonstrate some of the rare examples of law tackle these problems in an integrated way and and policy instruments addressing water quality is, despite remaining struggles, a good example issues caused by climate change in a transboun- of how to attain truly integrated water mana- dary context. Read full case gement from international to local scales. This decree covers the requirements of multiple uses United States water quality criteria for of water resources through the involvement of diverse actors and stakeholders during several nitrogen steps of the development and implementation Water quality degradation caused by over-en- process. Although several targets related to Eu- richment due to nitrogen is a widespread and ropean directives are not yet met, the implemen- pressing environmental issue. While quantita- tation of the Decree has resulted in progress in tive water quality standards have been establi- the improvement of water quality and flood ma- shed for nitrogen compounds in drinking water, nagement. Read full case challenges remain in regulating the presence of nitrogen in the ambient water environment. In The European Water Framework the United States, the USEPA initiated a strategy Directive in the Netherlands to develop region-specific numeric water quality criteria for nutrients to provide better protection The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is the cu- to aquatic ecosystems from eutrophication. This rrent European legislation aiming at long-term U.S. effort exemplifies the complexity in establi- sustainable water management based on a high shing water quality standards to meet ecologi- level of protection of the aquatic environment. cal goals in water quality management. Read full It addresses both the chemical and ecological case. status of surface water through a variety of pa- rameters. According to the precautionary prin- ciple, the overall indicator is aggregated with 55 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? CustomCustom titletitle GoesGoes herehere 9

Glossary of Terms

The glossary is ordered alphabetically and provides definitions of terms found in the Compendium. The chosen definitions correspond to authoritative sources where avai- lable. Where information was contradictory or inconclusive, a descriptive definition has been provided. The glossary will continuously be improved by users. Users are invited to suggest new terms or refine those included.

Agricultural water use: Agricultural water use Drip irrigation: A water-saving technique of includes water abstracted from surface and surface irrigation through pipes made of plastic. groundwater, and return flows (withdrawals) The process delivers the water drop-by-drop from irrigation for some countries, but excludes to plants through tiny holes, and prevents precipitation directly onto agricultural land waterlogging of soils (OECD, 2001e). (OECD, 2001b). Freshwater Ecosystems: The abiotic (physical Application gaps and weaknesses: The gaps and and chemical) and biotic components, habitats weaknesses that appear during the application and ecological processes contained within of law and policy instruments. water bodies and their fringing vegetation, but Brackish water: Water where the salinity is excluding marine and estuarine systems. appreciable but not at a constant high level. The Faecal indicator: A group of organisms that salinity may be subject to considerable variation indicates the presence of faecal contamination, due to the influx of fresh or sea waters (OECD, such as the bacterial group thermotolerant 2007). coliforms or E. coli. Hence, indicators only imply Complementary instrument: Other guidelines that that pathogens may be present (Ashbolt, et al., need to be considered during implementation. 2001). Freshwater: Any water source excluding sea and brackish waters. 57 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Genotoxicity: The potency of a compound to construction, dams and channels, land disposal interact with the genetic constitution of a cell and saltwater intrusion (OECD, 2001g). (BASF, 2015). Parameters and indicators: A parameter or a value Health-Related Indicator Value (HRIV): Concept derived from parameters that describe the state developed for evaluating substances, for which of the environment and its impact on human only limited data are available. Genotoxicity is beings, ecosystems and materials, the pressures considered the worst possible effect. When no on the environment, the driving forces and the data on genotoxicity are available, the substance responses steering that system. An indicator has in question is assumed to be genotoxic. Therefore, gone through a selection and/or aggregation an HRIV of 0.1 µg/l is set for this chemical. Once process to enable it to steer action. it is proved that a chemical is not genotoxic, an Policy(s): A plan of action adopted or pursued HIRV above 0.1 µg/l can be set (Grummt, et al., by an individual, government, party, business, 2013). etc. It includes all executive instruments without Hydropower: Electricity generation using the legal status, such as the general principles a power of falling water (OECD, 2001d). government follows in its management of public Irrigation: The artificial application of water affairs. This term can also be referred to as to land to assist in the growing of crops and ‘guidelines’, ‘strategies’, ‘plans’ or ‘programmes’. pastures. It is performed by spraying water under Recreational land and associated surface water: pressure (spray irrigation) or by pumping water Land that is used as privately owned amenity onto the land (flood irrigation) (OECD, 2001f). land, parklands and pleasure grounds and Law(s): Content wise, a rule or set of rules, publicly owned parks and recreational areas, enforceable by the courts, regulating the together with associated surface water (OECD, government of a state, the relationship between 2001c). the organs of government and the subjects of Recycled water: This is a generic term for used the state, and the relationship or conduct of water that is recovered and supplied again for subjects towards each other. Formally, they beneficial uses. Water can be recycled from are rules of conduct of binding force and are rainwater, stormwater, greywater and treated effected, prescribed, recognised and enforced effluent. When these alternative sources are by the state. They are also a ‘legislative act’ as treated as required, the water is suitable for a the legislature has the sole power to create, range of purposes (Recycled Water in Australia, amend and repeal laws. Laws may be referred in 2015). For example, drainage water may be used different systems and countries as ‘acts’, ‘bills’, several times as is the case in Egypt. ‘statutes’ or ‘codes’. Reused water: Treated wastewater, greywater Neurotoxicity: An adverse change in the structure or storm water runoff, recovered to a quality or function of the central and/or peripheral suitable for beneficial use. nervous system after exposure to a chemical, Regulations: All rules that emanate from the physical or biological agent (US EPA, 1998). executive branch. Laws can delegate the power Non-point source of pollution: Pollution sources to make rules to the executive branch with that are diffused and without a single point of the same legal force. This allows the technical, origin or not introduced into a receiving stream scientific and other expertise available to the from a specific outlet. The pollutants are generally executive branch to be incorporated more carried off the land by storm water run- off. The easily. This term can also be referred as ‘decree’, commonly used categories for non-point sources ‘ordinance’, ‘circular’ or ‘by-law’. are agriculture, forestry, urban areas, mining, Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 58

Water quality criterion: Numerical concentration in-stream uses such as fishing, recreation, or narrative statement recommended to support transportation and waste disposal (OECD, and maintain a designated water use. This 2001a). includes providing basic scientific information about the effects of water pollutants on a specific water use (Helmer & Hespanhol, 1997). Water quality objective (synonyms: water quality goal or target): A numerical concentration or narrative statement that has been established to support and to protect the designated uses of water at a specific site, river basin or part(s) thereof. This takes into consideration a water quality criterion and a critical assessment of national priorities (Helmer & Hespanhol, 1997). A water quality objective is therefore a management decision and not a scientific statement. Objectives can be stated in policy documents, but they can also be established in laws or regulations, especially to be attained at a future specified date. Water quality standard: An objective that is recognised as mandatory. Normally these would be established in a law or probably, a regulation. However, it is possible to establish binding standards in a policy document, which is then enforced through some other means. The term is used in this Compendium more broadly, to designate a general water quality rule that can be binding for users (when established by law or regulation) or non-binding (as when established by policy – for instance in guidelines – in which case their purpose is aspirational. Wastewater: Liquid waste discharged from homes, commercial premises and similar sources to individual disposal systems or to municipal sewer pipes, and which contains mainly human excreta and used water. When produced mainly by household and commercial activities, it is called domestic or municipal wastewater or domestic sewage. In this context, domestic sewage does not contain industrial effluents at levels that could pose threats to the functioning of the sewerage system, treatment plant, public health or the environment (WHO, 2006). Water Use: Use of water by agriculture, industry, energy production and households, including 59 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? CustomCustom titletitle GoesGoes herehere 9

Annexes

The Compendium is predominantly written in Annex I: a descriptive style supplemented by opinion analysis from the experts and practitioners. Methodology The laws and policies in this document are The initial study and proposed methodology, duly referenced and online sources – such as which consisted of a desk study focusing on institutional websites – are included whenever the collection and analysis of laws and policies possible. Secondary sources and opinions are regulating water quality, was enriched by a also referenced to allow the inclusion of different constant and overarching process of drafting, points of view. review, consolidation and consultation with water The development of the Compendium can quality experts from developing and developed be summarised into the following phases: (1) countries, policy makers and practitioners. This inception, (2) selection of instruments and was followed by a verification process with (3) draft and review. However, the various country and regulatory bodies’ representatives instruments included and analysed evolved with to ensure accuracy in primary sources and the the process of input and feedback from the relevance of the criteria for assessment. contributors. The section on Overview of Working Groups explains in detail the involvement of water quality Inception Phase experts and country representatives, which was The geographical scope, content, structure and on a voluntary basis, (see section below that criteria for analysis were determined on the basis outlines the involvement of working group of Compendium aims and objectives. To facilitate members in various subgroups). Individual its use as reference tool, the Compendium was contributions varied according to the field of divided into four areas for analysis, each one expertise and availability of information. organised as a separate chapter; namely (1) scope, 61 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

(2) management frameworks, (3) parameters environmental status reports and and thresholds, and (4) implementation. enforcement decrees. These documents Each regulatory instrument was described and were still included in the overall Compendium analysed under each chapter and included in as complementary instruments wherever a database as an independent item. Reference appropriate. to complementary instruments or referred 2. - Region In addition to global instruments, regulations is also included where appropriate. documents were shortlisted aiming for an However, given their broad diversity, not all the equal representation of all regions, namely topics covered in each chapter were applicable West Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, to each of the instruments included in the Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and Compendium (for example, not all instruments the Caribbean (these are based on UNEP’s provide parameters). defined regions). During this phase the proposed scope and 3. Document accessibility - The availability of structure of the Compendium was presented in official supporting information or reliable various fora for feedback. These consultations translation was essential. were held in conjunction with discussions on 4. Regulated water use - The selection aimed the portfolio of water quality projects being to address a variety of economic sectors coordinated by UNEP. The first presentation and water uses including industrial, was held at the World Water Week in August domestic, agricultural, mining, recreational, 2013 in Stockholm, Sweden, followed by the environmental and power generation. IWA Development Congress in Nairobi, Kenya, in October 2013; this phase also included bilateral 5. Current status of implementation - The consultations, mostly with the WHO and the selection of instruments preferred those IWA Task Force on Water Quality. implemented for a longer time and currently in force. This criterion aimed to collect lessons Selection of instruments learned to determine what instruments are The initial selection of 80 or more instruments effective, practical and better promote the was reviewed within the project team and wise use of water resources. through consultation with selected experts 6. Work group expertise - An additional from the IWA Water Quality Task Force. The criterion was to take into account the Compendium Working groups were also formed expertise of working group members, and consulted in this first instance at the first including the availability of case studies and coordination meeting held via teleconference implementation experiences associated with on 13 May 2014. During the inception phase, particular instruments. experts also contributed references of primary For each regulatory instrument (guidelines and and secondary sources, and technical analysis. standards, laws and policies) information was The outputs of the inception phase and the first compiled following the chapter structure and consultations were compiled and consolidated the guiding questions of the criteria for analysis to be the basis for the drafting and review (see Table 1). Where available, complementary process. The selection of instruments was then materials, related regulatory instruments and extracted from this initial list taking into account case studies were also included (see Part II Case the following: studies). Collection and analysis used templates 1. Type or nature of the document - Documents that were also used to receive inputs and that were not of legal or policy nature, or did feedback from the working groups (see Annex not provide a clear set of recommendations II: Input forms). or guidance, were removed, for example Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 62

Drafting and Review Overview of Working Groups The information gathered was consolidated The Compendium has been developed with in a database organised into the chapter the active technical input and feedback from structure. Additionally, a narrative was drafted renowned experts from developing and to accompany each chapter in the database and developed countries, as well as policy makers facilitate its navigation. and practitioners. Three groups were created for The narrative chapters were drafted to explain such purpose. the methodology and scope of each chapter, The first group – within the IWA member network highlighting key findings and referencing case – was the IWA Task Force on Water Quality, studies where possible to illustrate the topics which specifically provided initial technical advice covered. and suggestions on water quality guidelines, the The draft database chapters and accompanying criteria used to analyse the selected water quality narrative were shared with the working groups guidelines, and the methodological approaches for inputs and review. The members provided in terms of process and content. technical input and feedback over successive In addition, two working groups were created drafts, adding sources and case studies where to support the Compendium by inviting high- possible. level experts and decision makers in the field of Development of the ‘Criteria for Assessment’ water quality from different sectors and from was proposed and initiated in the drafting and developed and developing countries. The groups review phase. This stemmed from discussions resulted from a response to various calls for which asked: What makes a particular law or contributions within the IWA network, personal policy a good instrument to regulate water invitations to decision makers and practitioners quality? The response is a list of aspects to be with significant experience in water quality considered in the drafting, content, management issues, and suggestions from UNEP. and implementation of the various water quality The first working group (Working Group 1 instruments. Development) was set up to provide technical The criteria for assessment are one of the key input into the Compendium, giving advice on outputs and a tool for the Compendium’s the final criteria to gather and analyse standards continuous development and update. They and guidelines; suggestions for the selection highlight the type of key information that the user of innovative guidelines and standards to be should look into when using the Compendium included in the Compendium; as well as guidance as a reference. to the content of the necessary reports and assessments to be included. This working group Key findings and outcomes from the process of was composed of 25 members from all regions developing the Compendium were discussed at and economic sectors, including government World Water Week in August 2014 in Stockholm authorities, regulators, service providers, industry and the IWA World Water Congress 2014 in representatives and academicians. Lisbon. A final draft was made available to country and regulatory body representatives to The second working group (Working Group 2 verify the accuracy and up-to-date character of Review) was set-up to review the documents the primary sources included. produced in collaboration with Working Group 1 and to provide technical input and feedback on the application of the Compendium at national and regional levels. This will give relevant officials improved access to information on water quality requirements for different water uses, which in turn will promote efficient water use. This 63 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

working group was composed of 27 members these instruments; the implementation of laws from all regions and equivalent representation and policy instruments for water quality and the from different sectors. identification of their gaps and weaknesses; and, After the establishment of the working groups, finally, suggestions of case studies to illustrate a first coordination meeting was held via good practices and opportunities. teleconference on May 13th, 2014. The meeting Because of the large number of participants was convened to introduce the members of each in both working groups, four subgroups working group, set-up their work plans, review were created following the structure of the the preliminary outputs of the Compendium Compendium: namely subgroups to define drafting team and collect further feedback. This the scope of the Compendium guidelines and meeting included discussion of: the scope and standards, management frameworks used to purpose of the Compendium and how it can apply guidelines and standards, the parameters be used as a reference tool to select and design and thresholds to be considered, and the future instruments; the management framework implementation of guidelines and standards (see (methods or approaches) that is used to apply Table 2 below).

Table 2- Subgroups

Scope Management Parameters and Parameters Implementation Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 64

Annex II: Input forms

This Annex provides details of the input request submitted to each subgroup within Wor- king Group 1. These input requests were gathered using online tools (email and google forms). The objective of these calls for inputs was to facilitate collection of information and target specific feedback from working group members according to their experti- se and experience. For each theme, contributors were asked to focus on the following questions.

Chapter 1: Scope of the Guidelines or 4. What methods or approaches are commonly Standards [Access Online form] used to apply the guidelines and what are their advantages and disadvantages (for example, 1. What policy or regulatory instruments are incorporation into National Standards and/or innovative, practical and promote the wise implementing best practices such as Water use of water resources? Should we set Safety Plans)? different analysis criteria for developed and 5. Which other instruments should be developing countries? considered when applying water quality 2. What is needed for them to be implemented? guidelines for each use? What type of enabling regulatory framework 6. What case studies can you recommend or is usually in place? What capacity is required provide? for implementation? 3. What characteristics would ‘the best Chapter 3: Parameters, Indicators and guideline/regulatory instrument’ have for water quality management for different uses Thresholds adopted for Different Uses (e.g. guidelines, regulations, laws, etc.)? [Access Online form] 4. What case studies can you recommend or 1. How are the different parameters and provide? indicators to be assessed and incorporated (with reference to different uses) into the Chapter 2: Management framework database? used to apply the guidelines or standards 2. What types of parameters and indicators are [Access Online form] usually covered or should be covered by the guidelines/regulatory instruments for water 1. What are the main outcomes guidelines/ quality for each use? regulatory instruments are working towards? 3. What types of water sources are usually What uses are usually included? considered or should be considered by 2. How are the public and private sectors guidelines/regulatory instruments for each involved in applying the guidelines? What are use? the advantages and disadvantages of their 4. What parameters and indicators are involvement? appropriate to be considered in each use? 3. Which public or private entities are subject of And what are the common challenges the guidelines/regulatory instruments? What around their use? challenges do they face? 5. What case studies can you recommend or provide? 65 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

Chapter 4: Implementation of Water Quality Guidelines [Access Online form] 1. What are the common gaps and weaknesses in the application of guidelines/regulatory instruments for water quality for different uses? 2. What measures are/should be taken to enforce them? 3. What are some emerging issues that have arisen through the implementation process? 4. What are some of the challenges and opportunities around their implementation? 5. What case studies can you recommend or provide? Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 66

Annex III: List of selected regulatory instruments

DATE NAME STATUS COUNTRY 2011 World Health Organization Drinking Water Quality 2011 In use All

GLOBAL 2006 World Health Organization Safe Use of Wastewater 2006 In use All 2006 Kenya Water Quality Regulations 2006 In use Kenya 2002 Morocco Water Quality Standards for Irrigation 2002 In use Morocco 1996 South Africa Aquatic Ecosystems 1996 In use South Africa

AFRICA 1996 South Africa Domestic Use 1996 In use South Africa 2011 Australia Drinking Water Guidelines 2011 In use Australia 2006 Australia Water Recycling Guidelines 2006 In use Australia 2013 China FAO Control Water Pollution from Agriculture 2013 In use China 2006 China Standards for Drinking Water Quality 2006 In use China 2005 Japan Water Reuse Guidelines 2005 In use Japan 1997 Korea Water Quality and Ecosystem Conservation Act 1997 In use Korea 2001 Russia Requirements for Drinking Water Quality 2001 In use Russia

ASIA-PACIFIC 1991 Russia Quality Standards for Feed Water and Steam 1991 In use Russia 1999 Belarus Requirements for Drinking Water Quality 1999 In use Belarus 2006 EU Bathing Water Directive 2006 In use European Union 1998 EU Drinking Water Directive 1998 In use European Union 2006 EU Shellfish Water Directive 2006 Repealed European Union 1991 EU Urban Waste-water Treatment Directive 1991 In use European Union 2000 EU Water Framework Directive 2000 In use European Union 2006 EU Groundwater Directive 2006 In use European Union 2008 EU Environmental quality standards for surface water 2008 In use European Union 2011 France Misting Systems Guidelines 2011 In use France

EUROPE 2007 France Water Safety Regulation 2007 In use France 2013 France Cooling Tower Regulation 2013 In use France 2006 France Harvested Rainwater for Domestic Use Regulation 2006 In use France 2014 France Irrigation with Reclaimed Water Regulation 2014 In use France 2001 Germany Potable Water Ordinance 2001 In use Germany 2012 Kosovo Drinking Water Quality Instruction 2012 In use Kosovo 2014 Moldova Water Supply and Sanitation Strategy 2014-2018 In use Moldova 2002 Romania Drinking Water Quality Law 2002 In use Romania 2007 Spain Reclaimed Water Use Decree 2007 In use Spain 2004 Turkey Regulation on water pollution control 2004 In use Turkey 67 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

1983 Caribbean Protocol on Land Activities 1983 In use * 2000 Brazil Conama Resolution 274, Recreational Water Quality 2000 In use Brazil 2005 Conama Resolution 357, Surface Water Quality Guidelines 2005 In use Brazil 2008 Conama Resolution 396, Growndwater Quality Guidelines 2008 In use Brazil THE CARIBBEAN 2011 Brazil Conama Resolution 430, Effluent Quality Regulations In use Brazil

LATIN AMERICA AND AMERICA LATIN 2011 Brazil Ordinance No 2914, Drinking Water Quality 2011 In use Brazil 2012 Canada the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations 2012 In use Canada 2012 Canada Recreational Water Quality 2012 In use Canada 1996 Canada Drinking Water Quality 1996 (2012) In use Canada 1997 Texas Use of Reclaimed Water 1997 In use United States

NORTH AMERICA NORTH 2004 US EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse 2004 Repealed United States 2012 US EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse 2012 In use United States

* 2009 Jordan Water Strategy 2009 In use Jordan * WESTERN ASIA * Barbados, Colombia, Cuba, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, France, Jamaica, United Mexican States, Netherlands, Panama, St. Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, UK, USA, Venezuela Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use? 68

Annex IV: Complementary sources

In September 2010 UN-Water established a Thematic Priority Area (TPA) on Water Qua- lity to enhance inter-agency collaboration and support UN Member States in addressing global water quality challenges. The aim was also to monitor and report on the state of water quality, identify emerging issues and propose relevant responses (UN Water, 2014). Under the umbrella of UN-Water TPA on Water Quality, a series of initiatives were started to fulfil the aforementioned goals and to contribute to achieving the current development targets in the global agenda.

The International Water Quality intended to be global in scope and relevance, Guidelines for Ecosystems (IWQGES) with a strong focus on assisting developing countries. The freshwater phase of ecosystems is an Their objective is to define regionally relevant excellent proxy to characterise the ecological principles and thresholds, to advise how to health of an upstream catchment or even an establish standards to guide and support the entire river basin. However, this potential is not formulation of locally relevant policies, and yet utilised adequately. protection and rehabilitation towards improving Although international water quality guidelines freshwater ecosystem health. already exist for other uses, similar regulatory These Guidelines are intended to be science- mechanisms are needed for freshwater based recommendations, hence providing, ecosystems. These would facilitate the integration among others, a set of non-prescriptive physical, of an ecosystem-based management approach chemical and biological characterisations of in water resources management and allocation. certain categories of freshwater ecosystems. Further to the mandate from UN-Water, the UNEP The development of the IWQGES benefits from Governing Council adopted decision GC 27/3 in the Compendium and the other complementary February 2013, to “develop International Water activities described below to develop a roadmap, Quality Guidelines for Ecosystems that may be as follows: voluntarily used to support the development A roadmap with scientifically based policy of national standards, policies and frameworks and technical recommendations to assist taking into account existing information while transnational, national and regional authorities in integrating, as appropriate, all relevant aspects establishing appropriate regulatory mechanisms of water management”. In implementing this to improve the sustainable management of decision, UNEP is working closely with the United their water resources and protect freshwater Nations University – Institute for Environment ecosystems. and Human Security (UNU-EHS). A Drafting Group has been established for the drafting process, comprising international members of the scientific community. The IWQGES focus on water quality conditions that sustain healthy freshwater ecosystems and their functions. They will additionally draw linkages between provisioned ecosystem services and respective human uses. The IWQGES are 69 Compendium of Water Quality Regulatory Frameworks: Which Water for Which Use?

The World Water Quality Assessment Wastewater Monitoring and Assessment (WWQA) UNEP is implementing a comprehensive The WWQA is an initiative of UN-Water led by Wastewater Monitoring and Assessment, UNEP with the Global Environment Monitoring which will establish significant wastewater System for Water (GEMS/Water).1 The assessment targets and indicators that can also feed into is two-fold: first, it identifies current and future the development of the IWQGES. The project problem areas of freshwater quality in surface will strengthen the normative wastewater waters, especially in developing countries; assessment and monitoring baseline. second, it evaluates policy options for addressing Furthermore, a resource book of technologies water pollution. for wastewater management will be established and an economic and sustainability rationale for The WWQA will use the DPSIR conceptual wastewater management provided. The project framework to describe and analyse the global will be directly undertaken by UNEP in its Global freshwater water quality with its connections Programme of Action for the Protection of the between “drivers”, “pressures”, “state”, impacts” Marine Environment from Land-based Activities and “responses”. The analysis will be performed (GPA). at global, regional and local levels. Assessment goals • Review the state of water quality in rivers and lakes/reservoirs, especially in developing countries, with particular emphasis on public health issues and the status of the freshwater fishery. • Identify areas under serious threat by water pollution, now and over the coming decades. • Identify policy options that can be replicated and scaled up to protect or restore water quality. • Raise awareness of the importance of water quality degradation for local and national sustainable development. • Increase the capacity of developing countries to protect or restore the quality of their surface waters, supporting identification and shaping of policy options.

3 The initial scientific partners for the assessment are as follows: The UN-Water Group led by the United Nations Environment Programme. The UNEP Global Environment Monitoring System for Water (GEMS/Water). The Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Germany. The Center for Environmental Systems Research-CESR, Germany.